Author Topic: White house (and soon most dems) sucking up to the OWS movement.  (Read 340 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
White house (and soon most dems) sucking up to the OWS movement.
« on: November 20, 2011, 07:47:35 PM »



President Obama is paying close attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement - and has said he sympathizes with protesters' broad grievances... Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, in a Sunday conference call briefing to outline details of Obama's three-day bus trip to North Carolina and Virginia, was asked if the president intended to address the growing protests that have sprouted up throughout the country and some cities in western Europe.

Earnest told scribes to stay tuned, adding that it was possible Obama would talk about the movement specifically but that he would acknowledge the "frustrations" of middle and working-class people who feel the rich haven't paid their fair share - or been penalized for the excesses that led to the financial crisis.

The president, he said, will make sure "the interests of the 99 percent of Americans. are well-represented on the tour..."

http://tinyurl.com/obamasupports99

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White house (and soon most dems) sucking up to the OWS movement.
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2011, 07:51:46 PM »
LMFAO!!!! 

Corzine, Gentsler, Geithner, Summers, Wolff, Goldman Sachs, Rubin, et al   

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: White house (and soon most dems) sucking up to the OWS movement.
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2011, 07:55:41 PM »
"Any given republican" should be up 25 points right now in polls over this kenyan socialist lesbian junta.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: White house (and soon most dems) sucking up to the OWS movement.
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2011, 08:57:07 PM »
what "grievences" is he referring to 240?