The scattered, unorganized protests are certainly garnering media attention and even Presidential support, but to be honest I really don’t understand their message. Some protesters say they are against corporate and financial greed, but they still somehow support BO. That just doesn’t make sense to me, but then again I don’t think I’ll ever understand how liberals rationalize and justify their views.
These people, whom the President said were merely reflecting the "broad-based frustration" among Americans, are against corporate greed and capitalism, but they support a president who gave millions of taxpayer dollars to Chrysler and General Motors.
These people, whom the President said were simply expressing “the frustrations the American people feel” are against corporate greed and capitalism, but support a president who gave millions of tax payer dollars to failing green energy businesses (yes, plural).
Let’s get this straight, they are against people working hard and becoming successful –capitalism, but for the government taking money from the taxpayers to give it to failing and unionized companies that are political supporters of the current administration--last I looked, that was called greed.
While we’re at it, let’s compare the media and BO’s response towards these agitators to their reaction to Tea Party protests. Within hours of their “occupation” the protests turned violent. I’ve been to several Tea Party protests, including the 2009 DC 9/12 event (the largest to date; estimated at one million people) and not a single act of violence was committed, and Tea Party crowds typically number in the thousands to hundreds of thousands, not these dozens or few hundred protestors that are popping up as part of this Occupy movement. I don’t even recall any Tea Party violence splashed on the news---and we all know the liberal media would just love to replay that over and over if they had the footage. Is the media or the BO administration out there demonizing the Occupiers like they did the Tea Partiers? No.
Nancy Pelosi said the Tea Party protests were astroturf, meaning they weren’t a true grassroots movement—that some conservative Wizard of Oz was behind the curtain pulling all the strings. Yet, billionaire George Soros and union thugs linked to Obama are bankrolling the Occupy Wall Street protests, so they aren’t exactly grassroots themselves, more like paid protestors. Am I the only one that sees the irony of a billionaire and Union thugs, the very people who have been the beneficiaries of capitalism and greed, bankrolling an anti-capitalism movement? Is the media or anyone from the BO administration calling the Occupiers astroturf? No.
The liberals like to try and portray the Tea Party as racist because they say the Party is made of mostly white, middle aged folks. I can tell you from experience, from having attended several Tea Party protests, that they are very much comprised of multicultural protestors, of every ethnicity, and of all age ranges. Yet in DC, an organizer for the Occupy movement admitted to paying Hispanics to attend the protests and hold signs, so their protests wouldn’t look so white. Not only does this show how phony and manipulative the liberals are, it’s just more proof that the Occupy movement is really nothing more than astroturf. Is anyone in the media or the BO administration calling these mostly white protestors or the movement racist? No.
These so-called Occupiers say they represent the “other” 99% of Americans. Well, they certainly don’t represent me. I believe in hard work, success, and accountability. Everyone in this country has the same, equal opportunity to work hard and achieve great things if they apply themselves. What I don’t believe in, is a country where the true greedy people, the liberals, think equality is defined by what we have and think fairness is defined as the government taking from one person who works hard to give to a person who chooses not to. I define equality in terms of opportunity and rights, not possessions or materialism.
“You must obey this now for a Law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled:) for the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers” - Captain John Smith