Transcript:
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 into this problem in the first place.So... the protesters? They are, indeed, protesting. They're expressing themselves... mmm hmmm. Could you be any more noncommittal?
So yes, I think people are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.
And then throw in a bunch of the usual phrases like "got us into this problem in the first place."
पोस्ट्स
१०० टिप्पण्या:
Obama is inciting the protestors. He WANTS them. He NEEDS them. So he ENCOURAGES them. He will not interfear with them, even if they kill someone.
Notice so many unions are involved. The same ones that back Obama.
Coincidence? I think not!
So that is what Obama has become. An anarchist!
He cannot possibly risk alienating them - they, plus the academy, news media and the Wall Streeters themselves are his base after all.
And the biggest patsies? The Wall Streeters, about whom he can say anything, whose taxes he'll raise, whose businesses he'll suffocate with regulations - and who will continue to donate cash to his billion dollar reelection campaign - just so the bailouts are still on the table.
Too big to fail, indeed.
The Irony is that the OWS, in theory, hates everything that Obama did in the bail-outs and Dodd-Frank.
If OWS was really serious, they would be burning K Street, not Wal Street.
"Obama is inciting the protestors."
Yes!
Obama's fiery socialist rhetoric--albeit in coded, tepid, mealy-mouthed saying-nothing-while-seeming-to-say-something form--is his call to arms, at last! His plot is laid, his minions are in place, and now is the time for them to STRIKE!
ANARCHY 4EVAH!!
Jeebus...what stupid.
Here's the craziest thing... Obama hasn't even ever mentioned the phrase "tea party". He has implicitly denied them their existence and therefore the validity of their cause. Yet, just days into the Occupy Wall Street protests, the President has explicitly supported them. He owns their cause now. When they start smashing windows, setting fires and killing people, it will be Obama's riot.
Drill SGT: OWS is not even "burning" Wall Street.
Can you try reading about the protests or watching the tv reports without wearing your Jack Daniels goggles?
The protesters seem bland on him too. I went to one of their rallies yesterday and heard not a peep about Obama or "pass this bill".
And what makes you think the OWS protesters are not also opposed to Obama? When one talks of the sins of "Wall Street," one is unavoidably talking of the sins of Washington.
They're each whore and john for the other.
"And what makes you think the OWS protesters are not also opposed to Obama?"
Umm, cause everyone of them I've seen interviewed has stated, when asked, that they will continue to support Obama. And, as I've learned from the Left, just a handful of protesters represents a whole movement.
I agree with Paul. Obama is hoping behind the scenes to still take money from the Wall Streeters who still back him since there will no backlash from the crazy protesters.
Ah, Obama is up to his little games again. Before HRC, he was bashing insurance companies. Now it is the Wall Street guys. He is (or will) revving up the crowd but like you say not on this podium and press conference. Elsewhere, behind the scenes. Who are these OWS people going to vote for in the end, right? OWS is the Dems response to tea party and it does Obama good. Obama playing dumb and 'noncommittal' makes me suspect about who these OWS people are.
I think the main reason the protests are happening is because Obama failed to live up to his promises; now his supporters are trying to take things into their own hands. Yes, they engage in lots of magical thinking, but that is exactly the type of people who were so attracted to Obama in the first place. Obama was magically going to solve their problems, now they're going to do it.
Obama is hoping behind the scenes to still take money from the Wall Streeters who still back him since there will no backlash from the crazy protesters.
I wonder if the protesters want to "burn down" the company that builds plastic Greek columns and "kill" it's rich CEO. If they succeed, whatever will POTUS put on the stage behind him at the convention?
(assuming he doesn't get primaried)
The idea that Obama is inspiring anyone anymore is completely ridiculous. If you think that you might as well be one of the protesters saying paranoid things about "the 1%".
Everybody needs to get a grip.
To the degree any of the OWS protesters claim they will continue to support Obama, and to the degree they act on their claims, I think they're terribly mistaken, but this cannot necessarily be assumed to constitute a real support for him or his policies. It might be they hold the common but wrong-headed notion that he, being the supposed lesser of two evils, must be re-elected, if only to keep the "more evil" Republicans from gaining the White House.
Don't mistake my snark quotes above: I do think the Republicans are evil, but so, also, are the Democrats, to the extent they are also servile lackeys of the military/industrial complex, which is to say, almost completely, (if less proudly and enthusiastically than the Republicans, about whom one cannot use the modifier "almost").
Umm, cause everyone of them I've seen interviewed has stated, when asked, that they will continue to support Obama.
Really. Every single one? I think you just made that up. The people interviewed that I seen are sick and tired of the Obama status quo. If they thought he was performing they wouldn't be sleeping on sidewalks.
I guess I should say, the "military/industrial/financial complex", as that is what is really is.
Hey fucktard - when asked - are you going to vote for Obama - every one I have seen interviewed has said, "yes". Believe or do not believe but don't call me a liar. Kulak.
To the perennially dense like Robert Cook it should be pointed out that the constant drumbeat of blame the millionaires-billionaires class warfare rhetoric emanating from the Whitehouse and Democrat party is what's driving these protests.
The fact that Obama is the most egregious of crony capitalists matters not, because these protesters are way to stupid to grasp this fundamental fact. It's all the Republicans' and Tea Party's fault as far as they're concerned.
This is the Dems final desperate act, to stoke mass civil unrest. Heck, if Obama can preside over a civil war in his mind he'll be right up there with Lincoln.
(Not the Paul above)
I wandered through the Manhattan OWS site yesterday at lunch, and I didn't see any pro-Obama posters or t-shirts or buttons or tattoos or hear any pro-Obama comments or rhetoric. I didn't hear any specific politicians named as heroes or villians; while one cannot generalize about all the individuals in a collective, I'll risk it and say that these people see that it is the system that is broken, (or has been perverted by the powerful and wealthy to serve their ends exclusively, and not those of we, the people), and that the politicians of either party are merely bit players, all of whom are perpetuating the broken system.
My disdain for this president is bottomless.
Good Lord what a mistake he has been.
Now the Dems nationwide are gently, ever so gently egging on these pointless demonstrators because at this point the Dems have absolutely nothing to offer but distractions from the national debacle they have caused.
That Great Depression line is getting old. It is the big lie. This mess was not caused by Wall Street. It was caused by decades of government social engineering with the economy.
They should rename it flopuy Wall Street.
It is going nowhere.
anyone else think that the protesters, if they were serious, should be in front of the white house and k street, and not wall street?
OWS will either pillage and burn or will fizzle.
What it will never do is morph into a real American groundswell.
A real American groundswell, my dear Cook and Garage, is what is building now unrelentingly and in November 2012 will absolutely swamp the infant President and the Dems in the Senate.
"I wandered through the Manhattan OWS site yesterday at lunch, and I didn't see any pro-Obama posters or t-shirts or buttons or tattoos or hear any pro-Obama comments or rhetoric."
Sorry, I couldn't do your on-the-ground research Cookie. 'Cause I have a fucking job. So, I'll have to do what the Left did when confronted with the Tea Party. Stand at a distance and impute the motives of the movement as best I can from the handful of data points I have. Sucks doesn't it?
"To the perenially" scintillating "Robert Cook it should be pointed out that the constant drumbeat of blame the millionaires-billionaires class warfare rhetoric emanating from the Whitehouse and Democrat (sic) party is what's driving these protests."
No.
Obama is not Lenin...he's not even LBJ.
It is the real world facts of life that many of these people can see or are living: financial collapse and penury for we, the people, "austerity" measures by govt. for the poor and elderly, but continuing and growing untold riches for the financial elites, helped by those in Washington who would not dare suggest even a hint of "austerity" measures for the wealthy, and who didn't (and would never) attach strings of reciprocity to the policies that helped the financial institutions when they faced imminent collapse as a result of their own recklessness and criminality.
The noisome hippies are about the only people left in the country who are capable of making Obama look good by comparison.
Hey fucktard - when asked - are you going to vote for Obama - every one I have seen interviewed has said, "yes". Believe or do not believe but don't call me a liar. Kulak.
Maybe you're watching different protests. The core people that started this hate both parties. Yesterday they told MoveOn and other groups trying to co-opt the movement to "fuck off". I don't blame them. And I'm pretty sure they do not give a fuck what anyone thinks of them either.
Robert Cook said...
I wandered through the Manhattan OWS site yesterday at lunch, and I didn't see any pro-Obama posters or t-shirts or buttons or tattoos or hear any pro-Obama comments or rhetoric.
--------------------
You may be right. But what you said was exactly what was said of tea party in the early days (they even had all Hillary voters, the centrist Dems, they said) but now it has been appropriated by the Republicans. This OWS thingy will become Obama's minions shortly. Unions and DKos and such lapdogs are joining the fray and it is already populated by the young know nothings who voted for Obama in the first place.
"anyone else think that the protesters, if they were serious, should be in front of the white house and k street, and not wall street?"
Someone else already raised this point.
But why? The policies that emanate from Washington are largely the expression of Wall Street's will; the protesters recognize that Washington is in service to Wall Street and not to any other constituency or agenda.
("Wall Street" is an umbrella term that describes the corporate/financial interests at large who pay their hired hands in Washington to effect their preferred policies.)
"It is the real world facts of life that many of these people can see or are living: financial collapse and penury for we, the people"
Bullshit. These protesters, other than the union astroturfers, are the same loudmouth, unkempt, unproductive leftist crybabies and rageboys we've seen since the 60's. Brainwashed by radical egalitarians like yourself in the media and academia.
These shitstains are hardly "we the people". They are the leftist kook fringe always available for the protest du jour because they have nothing better to do, and no real useful purpose on planet Earth.
"Sorry, I couldn't do your on-the-ground research Cookie. 'Cause I have a fucking job."
Fortunately, so do I. But many (and increasingly more all the time) do not. This is what is driving the OWS protests, and not any mythical marching orders or class war rhetoric being ascribed to Wall Street tool Barack Obama.
"This is what is driving the OWS protests, and not any mythical marching orders or class war rhetoric being ascribed to Wall Street tool Barack Obama."
Right. The fact that they happen to materialize right after Obama shifts into full bore class warfare mode is purely coincidental.
Obama made a calm, reasoned reponse--quite superior to the right's shrieking --ie AnnCounter cuntspeak--George Washington didn't have tattoos!--or the radical leftists tablepounding.
Of course Obama is ultra-bland on the OWS protests. The protests were organized by OFA and AFSCME operatives in order to divert attention away form Obama's failed economic policies and blame the economic collapse on Wall Street and banks in general.
Gullible leftist college students were led to believe that they could protest their way into forgiveness of their student loans. They fell for it. Have you heard interviews of these suckers? They are truly clueless as to why they are there, and more clueless about economics and fiscal policy.
OWS and its local offshoots are false-flag operations indented to make Obama look good. Hence the blandness. He won't criticize them because they are helping him. He wants more protests. He's a community organizer, after all.
The fact that they happen to materialize right after Obama shifts into full bore class warfare mode is purely coincidental.
It's not a fact moron. The protests were being organized months ago. By people completely unaffiliated with Lib/Dem groups.
"radical egalitarians"
You say that like it's a bad thing. Why, you'd think we wanted to institute something really extreme in this country, like a functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the needs and will of the people, rather than to only the elites.
Robert Cook wrote: But why? The policies that emanate from Washington are largely the expression of Wall Street's will; the protesters recognize that Washington is in service to Wall Street and not to any other constituency or agenda.
Yet the policies are what the protesters wish to change.
This could be interesting dynamic. The occupy protestors need to generate general public outrage about the power of banks and corporations. This will put pressure on banks and corporations to softpedal their lobbying.
The tea party needs to continue to generate public outrage about government excess. This will put pressure on the Federal government to scale back their spending and economic interventions.
Couple these together and you have a possible win for the tea party and its elected officials. Less aggressive corporations will make it easier for small government folks to reduce government.
* * *
The problem with the occupy protestors is that demand an impossibility. They want to make the government less beholden to special interests by giving the government more power -- more power to tax, more power to regulate, more power to intervene in the economic system. This is ahistorical nonsense. No government has ever gotten more egalitarian through the increase of its power. The courtiers of Versailles bend and scrape through the ages.
By people completely unaffiliated with Lib/Dem groups.
Van Jones was front and center organizing these protests and has been harping about them for the past couple of months to anyone that would listen. How is Van Janes unaffiliated with "lib/dem" groups?
Why, you'd think we wanted to institute something really extreme in this country, like a functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the needs and will of the people, rather than to only the elites.
Why, it's almost like you want the institutionalized equality of outcomes rather than the equality of opportunity.
"It's not a fact moron. The protests were being organized months ago. By people completely unaffiliated with Lib/Dem groups."
Please. The timing is obvious. The congruency with the Lib Dem rhetoric is obvious. The union involvement at the behest of their Dem politicians masters is obvious. Your colossal and intractable stupidity has been obvious since your first post. Sell your nonsense somewhere else fool.
If OWS was really serious, they would be burning K Street, not Wal Street.
Sounds like they heard you.
Van Jones was front and center organizing these protests and has been harping about them for the past couple of months to anyone that would listen.
I said the people that started OWS. It was about 100-200 people.
There will be a ton of groups claiming credit for it now, and joining. Paul is too fucking stupid or lazy find out for himself though, much easier to read paranoid wingnut drivel telling him what to think.
The protests were being organized months ago. By people completely unaffiliated with Lib/Dem groups.
*snicker*
Obama should run on his Hopey?Change meme again. Because it appears there are still libtards stupid enough to swallow it a 2nd time.
I said the people that started OWS. It was about 100-200 people.
No, what you said was,
It's not a fact moron. The protests were being organized months ago. By people completely unaffiliated with Lib/Dem groups.
Please explain how Van Jones is not affiliated with lib/dem groups. He has been pounding the pundits about his groups' doings in organizing these protests.
"But many (and increasingly more all the time) do not [have a job]."
My copy of the Constitution must be defective. I can't find the clause that guarantees womyn's studies majors, grief therapists and fine-arts grads instant and permanent employment free of market forces. Point it out to me, will you?
--Note Squat's typical guilt by association...Van Jones,or Michael Moore were out there...the whore Sarandon...yikes, Reds! Ergo all the protestors' demands are ludicrous. How the teabug plebian mind works, or...rather doesn't work.
--wow the sockpuppet aka Bubba Trashly must have his 2 or3 compaqs open! Haz vs Cook! bipolar disorder marches on.
"You say that like it's a bad thing. Why, you'd think we wanted to institute something really extreme in this country, like a functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the needs and will of the people, rather than to only the elites."
Radical egalitarianism is most definitely a bad thing because it can only be imposed by government coercion and force. There is nothing democratic about it.
See:
French Revolution
Russian Revolution
Communist China
Castro's Cuba
N. Korea
What you're lamenting is the crony capitalism that is rendered possible by big government's collusion with big finance-corporations. Without the government's involvement those institutions would be subject to the competition and creative destruction of the free market. They seek to avoid that through government intervention...picking winners and losers through regulation, bailouts, etc.
The only way to stop this is to reduce the size and scope of the government. More government and regulations, your solution, is simply a recipe for more mischief.
You are trying to replace one group of elites with another, one that will regulate markets "fairly" through an enlightened top-down bureaucracy.
That's the leftist fantasy. That someday you will install a body of of fair minded, moral, enlightened individuals to fairly administer wealth and resources. But it is just a fantasy, and it has left a trail of poverty and bloodshed everywhere it's been tried.
--Note Squat's typical guilt by association
Note your complete lack of knowledge, apparently, of the constant media appearances Van Jones has been making over the past month or so promising that his group was going to organize these protests.
Do you have the data on yr assumed set of protesters' educational backgrounds, Chissy, or just brainfartin' ala Rush Limbozo? Sounds like the latter.
"Note your complete lack of knowledge, apparently, of the constant media appearances Van Jones has been making over the past month or so promising that his group was going to organize these protests.'
Yeah apparently garbage's 100-200 original non affiliated stooges couldn't get the ball rolling until Obama, Van Jones, et al fanned the flames.
Please explain how Van Jones is not affiliated with lib/dem groups. He has been pounding the pundits about his groups' doings in organizing these protests.
Van Jones did not start the organizing of the protests. But I really don't care if he did or didn't. I like Van Jones.
Probably fruitless to argue, wingers will be beleive some alternate version of reality anyway. Or lie.
"I like Van Jones."
'The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. . .No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders.' - Van Jones, circa 2002
Of course you'd like him, garage.
I like Van Jones.
Surprise me not, although, honestly, I wouldn't think you would be stupid enough to like a guy who's definition of social justice entails taking your life, rolling it up like a piece of paper, and tossing it into a pile with everyone else's, only to pull one out at random and be confident that it would be a good life.
I didn't think you resided in the realm of unicorn burps, GM. This guy says that since the above can't happen...we have some problems. Apparently, someone can go through all the trouble, struggle, cost, and sacrifice of getting a medical degree, only to be just peachy with swapping his or her life with that of a janitor.
Please explain to me how that's a workable definition of anything resembling reality.
More mush from the wimp.
Here's a pretty interesting report on the organization and presence of the protests over time:
Independent reporting of #OccupyWallStreet
Posted by Robert David Graham (@ErrataRob)
Quote:
In many ways, the press treats this protest the way they treated the Tea Party, completely distorting the story. Journalists ignored the mainstream of the Tea Party and instead focused on the fringe. Instead of showing the hundreds of signs calling for smaller government, reporters instead focused on the one sign showing Obama as Hitler. In the end, this reporting became self-fulfilling. The Republican fringe disaffected with the establishment were convinced by this reporting, believing that they, too, should join the Tea Party, thus derailing it.
This is a particular danger to the Occupation movement. They still haven’t defined themselves, and risk letting the press define the movement for them. They started out with the idea that occupying Wall Street for weeks would be a good way to get their message out, but they are still trying to come to consensus on what, precisely, their message is.
My own reading is that the Tea Party was always closer to political reality than the #occupy protesters. Very early on the Tea Party chose political venues to vent (remember the summer town hall season) and pursued their goals through existing (Republican) political structures. The Tea Party has also always had an explicitly political program.
It will be interesting to see if the #occupy protests move in that direction ... but that is a pretty big jump from anarchistic calls to restructure global capitalism.
It is no surprise that with such a gap between proclamations and political reality the establishment goons are inserting themselves.
ScottM
Not sure what the hell you're talking about.
Not sure what the hell you're talking about.
If Van Jones were to espouse such a definition of social justice, a completely unworkable, unrealistic view, would you still "like" him? Or would you possibly start looking askance at someone who would go before live audiences and seriously make that claim as their end-game goal?
Be honest. I assure you, I'm not making up his scenario. Maybe you don't know the guy as well as you think.
Perhaps you should just quote/link and cut to the chase.
Barry's a little down because he sees what real community organizers can do and all he was able to achieve was Altgeld Gardens.
And what Sarge said.
Robert Cook said...
I guess I should say, the "military/industrial/financial complex", as that is what is really is.
He forgot welfare.
In the end, I guess Cook wants the kind of Socialism where the suffering is shared equally
Perhaps you should just quote/link and cut to the chase.
There's plenty of links out there as he's given this speech many times. Perhaps you should know more about political figures you say you like. Further, if you're not even aware of this lynchpin in Van Jones' ideology, I'm a bit skeptical that you have any idea how involved he was in the organization of these protests.
"Ultra-bland" = passive-aggressive
Being passive-aggressive is another of Obama's modi operandi.
Obama's "Ultra-bland" is just a way to later say, "who me?" when asked if he incited the protestors to riot.
Reminds me of Mark Anthony and, "I come not to praise Cesar, but to bury him" speech where he ends up causing a riot and war (but Obama ain't no Anthony.. but might try to be a Cesar.
"Why, it's almost like you want the institutionalized equality of outcomes rather than the equality of opportunity."
No, but equality before the law would be nice, (and is necessary for equality of opportunity to exist).
RC, I thought you were for single-payer health care.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Good article today by Mike Whitney on Obama's false populism.
And ScottM, I am for single payer health care. I miss your point.
Actually, the article at COUNTERPUNCH on Obama's false populism is by Michael HUDSON.
"... The people interviewed that I seen are sick and tired of the Obama status quo..."
Oh dear, garage have you finally taken off the knee pads for Obama?
You think Obama is noncommital? Wow. Let's study what he said.
I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel
He is saying this protest is speaking for the American people. In other words, the American people are hostile to Wall Street and angry at Wall Street.
we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression
but it's over now! recovery autumn.
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
He is blaming Wall Street for unemployment, he is blaming Wall Street for not growing the economy, he is blaming Wall Street for everything. What he is saying is that the protesters are right. Wall Street is to blame for our economic mess. Wall Street should be held responsible. He wishes he could be out there, organizing the protests, but he's busy trying to regulate those bad people who have ruined our economy.
He blames Wall Street for...
trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this problem in the first place.
So he is completely on board with this protest, in thought if not in deed. It couldn't be more clear.
So yes, I think people are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.
He is using his establishment voice to put forth the exact same radical ideas that the people on the street are voicing. It's about the same level of coherency, and also the same level of law violation and destruction to private property and our ability to work for a living.
He is the Ivy League version of one of these idiots.
garage mahal said...
The fact that they happen to materialize right after Obama shifts into full bore class warfare mode is purely coincidental.
It's not a fact moron. The protests were being organized months ago. By people completely unaffiliated with Lib/Dem groups.
10/7/11 9:17 AM
Pray tell, do tell us who are the organizers. If it isn't the left then who? The far left? Or is it an evil Republican plot to enrage the masses against the Democrats?
Nixon's Silent Majority will be out in full force next election day. It will be a 49 state landslide and a filibuster proof Senate. The smelly trash that is OWS in their inchoate manner know this is coming and that is what they are 'protesting". Their free ride is coming to an end and the unions also know whats going to happen to them. They will be lucky if its only a national right to work act. The progressive state is about to get a major haircut and no amount of protesting or threaten violence is going to stop that from happening. Indeed the threats may have the opposite effect, it may harden the resolve to rollback the progressive state even more than it would have otherwise been reduced.
I happen to like the Jubilee concept many of these thoughtful protesters are demanding. The cancellation of all debt, all of it!, is what some are demanding must occur. They are aware, are they not, that if your pension is invested in bonds, any bonds, they are worthless? Cops and firemen too! Sorry, but you could have troubled to learn what "debt" means before wasting that wish with the genii
Nixon's Silent Majority will be out in full force next election day. It will be a 49 state landslide and a filibuster proof Senate.
You wouldn't feel the need to type that if you were so sure.
Hang on, it could be a bumpy ride.
You wouldn't feel the need to type that if you were so sure.
I'm pretty sure about it, but I didn't type it. Did you go look up some Van Jones communist goodness, GM?
Did you go look up some Van Jones communist goodness, GM?
Nope.
What, exactly, do you like about Van? The trutherism or the communism?
"Did you go look up some Van Jones communist goodness, GM?
Nope. "
He's too fucking lazy and stupid to look it up. He just relies on whatever left wing loon website he goes to to upload is brain dead talking points.
He's too fucking lazy and stupid to look it up. He just relies on whatever left wing loon website he goes to to upload is brain dead talking points.
You honestly think the right wing attacked Jones because they thought he was an inconsequential commie truther?
Never fails to amaze just how much loopy garbage the right throws out there, and their dumb as stump followers lap it up like warm milk every time. It's almost guaranteed. There are no dumb or implausible theories. It's like kindergarten art. Throw paint on some paper and everyone gets an A !
I don't know about all of that, GM, I just take the man at his word. I'd expect you would allow that much, at least. A man's statements have to count for something.
You stupid twit he was a SELF admitted communist and truther. No right wing inventions necessary.
A man's statements have to count for something.
Neither you or Paul have taken the time to post any actual statements from Jones.
Neither you or Paul have taken the time to post any actual statements from Jones.
Van Jones: "Would you be willing to take your life, write it on a card, throw it in a pot with everybody else, reach in at random and pull out another life, with total confidence that it would be a good life."
Shit! Very sorry, GM. I forgot to add his conclusion to that wonderful thought.
If not, "well, then you've got some work to do."
I go back to my example of the relative training/sacrifice to becoming a doctor versus that of a janitor. I'll even grant you a janitor of a really, really nice hotel. Granted, someone's got to run the hotel, but it's okay...cuz he could just swap lives with one of the desk clerks he manages, right?
no link to the statement? C'mon
As you've said on many occasions, find it yourself. It's but a quick google away.
If the unit known as Garage has been adequately programmed, perhaps the unit can output some names on these "100-200 people."'?
Perhaps you can post something remotely memorable or interesting for an exceedingly rare change of pace.
Firm that owns central spot for Occupy Wall Street protesters says sanitation has become growing concern
LOL. So they really are dirty and smelly?
I wonder what that area is going to look like right after the protest is over and whether or not they'll feel pressure to clean up.
In other words, the unit known as Garage has not been adequately programmed.
No it means you're a boring twat. Stale. Unfunny. Forgettable. You have it all.
Obama the innocent byastander.
I’d be less dismissive of the criticism of Obama if it could decide whether Obama is
a) a brilliant elitist RADICAL MARXIST bent on the destruction of America, or
b) bland and stupid.
It’s as if for every Obama action or statement, if he can’t be attacked on the basis of argument A, he’s automatically attacked on the basis of argument B. During the campaign Obama commented on which variety of lettuce he prefers and was attacked on the basis of Argument A. If it had been Iceberg and not Arugula I’m betting it would have been Argument B instead.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा