Thursday, October 6, 2011

Obama Backs Wall Street Violent Protesters

“Obviously, I’ve heard of it. I’ve seen it on television,” he said. “I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. That we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across Main Street. And yet, you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us in this problem in the first place.”
See his response below:

Obama refused to condemn any of the protesters actions (despite multiple altercations with police and arrests) and said they are just expressing their frustrations. That sounds to me like he stands with these lawless liberal warriors on Wall Street. Why in the world didn't Obama take the time to tell his liberal supporters to calm down and keep the law for a change? Is he afraid they might turn on him next? Are these supporters of Obama's really worth it? This isn't about doing what is best for the Obama campaign. It's time he does what is best for the country as a whole. He doesn't have to tell them to go home. But he should tell them to obey the law and give up the terrorism and violence.
 (CONTENT WARNING for strong language):
This is some of the racism coming out of these liberal protesters. Why can't Democrats speak out about this racism?


  1. The reason why he doesn't condemn them is because Obama agrees with them. He agrees that socialism is the way. He blames the financial meltdown on Republicans, when in fact, by virtue of Carter's Community Reinvestment act AND Clinton strengthen it, is what lead us to the whole mess.

  2. Step 1 on the road to declaring martial law.......

  3. When are these lazy asses coming to the Detroit area? Is Bruce and JoeC at the Wall Street riots?

  4. Remember the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov.
    Scott Walker doing away with the collective bargaining for teachers
    unions? The results are in. Some school districts went from a $400,000
    deficit to a $1,500,000 surplus as a result. Why?

    It seems that the insurance company that provided all the "so-called"
    benefits to the teachers, was an insurance company owned and operated by
    the teacher's union. Since they were guaranteed to get the insurance
    business from the teachers and the State had to pay for it, and not the
    teachers, they were increasing the annual costs every single year to
    become the most expensive insurance company in the state. Then the
    insurance company was donating millions and millions of dollars to their
    favorite democrat politicians, who when they got elected, guaranteed to
    keep funding the unions outrageous costs. In other words, the insurance
    company was a "pass through" for Wisconsin taxpayer money directly to the
    democrat politicians.

    Nice racket, and this is the racket that is going on in every single
    State that allows collective bargaining. No wonder the States are taking
    it away.

    Now that the State of Wisconsin is free to put the insurance contract out
    for bid, and lo and behold, they have saved so much money it has turned
    deficits into surplus amounts. As a result, none of the teachers had to
    be laid off, everyone got a raise, etc., etc., and the taxpayers of
    Wisconsin don't have to pay more taxes to fund the union's political

    If you weren't aware of the reasons why Gov. Walker was fighting to take
    away collective bargaining, it gives you an idea of the problem.

    Here is the article:

  5. Things didn't get crazy till the cop started peppering spraying those woman. then all hell broke those.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.