W.H. with the '99 percent'-ers: Pres. Obama said he "sympathizes with protesters' broad grievances"

[ClarkUSA]

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

They carried signs reading 'Your Money is Our Money', and 'Yes We Camp', an echo of the slogan 'Yes We Can' used by U.S. President Barack Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/6l63hec

[gateley]

1. Yes we camp!

:7

I swear, the signs have been so impressive, creative, amusing, touching. And spelled correctly.

[ClarkUSA]

2. "And spelled correctly." lol

Isn't that such a pleasant sight, given the semi-literate signs waved by teabaggers?

[ClarkUSA]

3. Kick for those who missed it

:kick:

[polmaven]

4. So why hasn't he

pitched a tent and brought his sleeping bag to the front lawn of the White House???:shrug:

[TheWraith]

51. Because that's patently ridiculous, dangerous, and absurd? nt

[polmaven]

139. Well, of course,

that would be the way the most of us would think, but lately I am beginning to think that more than a few members here come very close to that kind of absurdity.

[Brigid]

5. That's all well and good.

But why hasn't Obama apoken out about the police brutality in so many Occupy cities? Hasn't he seen the pictures?

[ClarkUSA]

6. Both OWS and police have done their share of wrongdoing and should stop it.

President Obama is no more obligated to speak out on "police brutality" across the nation than on OWS supporters' throwing of Molotov cocktails, vandalism of public property, breaking and entering, assaulting police officers, and attacking police cars with hammers.

[rug]

9. They're still looking for the hammer.

[ClarkUSA]

10. You're still looking for relevance. Gratuitous flashing of a unrelated photo = violence porn.

[rug]

11. Yes I suppose of a picture of someone who's skull is fractured by the police is irrelevant.

Especially if you're interested in spinning.

[ClarkUSA]

12. That's a nonsensical stretch. It's irrelevant to your accompanying "hammer" rhetoric.

False implication notwithstanding, violence porn doesn't turn me on like it does its purveyors.

Were you outraged over Waco, too? Because that FUBAR action was laid directly at Clinton's door.

Why didn't Hillary speak out? :sarcasm:

[rug]

13. You're the one saying protesters are attacking police with hammers.

You've lost all perspective on political reality.

[ClarkUSA]

15. That's a false statement. An OWS protester attacked police cars with a hammer.

It's a fact. Look it up.

Before you gas out anymore outrage, know that as a New Yorker, I have been down with OWS with family and friends in New York for months now. Unlike you, no doubt. I haven't posted much here as a result.

[rug]

17. Equating police violence with these protests to make brownie points for POTUS is disgusting.

[ClarkUSA]

18. WTF are you spewing now? Making up strawman arguments in order to attack the POTUS is disgusting.

But then again, that's all some of Obama's 24/7 critics have done since 2008.

[rug]

21. Read your headline before you sputter.

[ClarkUSA]

23. My headline is factual, unlike your personal attack rhetoric.

[rug]

25. So is that photo. Unlike your lame line about seeking relevance.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Your snide "hammer" aside was irrelevant to the violence porn.

Anyone who really cared about that young man wouldn't use a photo of him as a punctuation to a flippant remark.

[rug]

29. Anyone who cared would not equate the protests he supports with the police violence against them.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Anyone who values the truth would not continue to make strawman arguments.

[rug]

33. I agree. Hence my disagreement with you.

[ClarkUSA]

34. I'm dubious, considering you keep making false claims about what I said.

[rug]

36. I'm looking deep inside that sentence but I have yet to find sense in it.

I'll get back to you when I do.

[ClarkUSA]

37. I have yet to find sense of your strawman argument re: what I said.

[Hutzpa]

14. Where was molotov cocktail thrown?

nt.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Utah. A 20 year old threw one at a Wells Fargo bank.

There have been threats to destroy storefronts with Molotov cocktails, as well:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=OWS+molotov+cocktail&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Hutzpa]

40. You are citing one instances where molotov cocktail was prevented

from being thrown as one of the reason he should not make a statement about police brutality in
America when he made a statement on Egypt were protesters did far worse than what OWS has done?

Really? c'mon man!

[ClarkUSA]

41. Wrong. This is what I actually said. -->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799053&mesg_id=818993

-------------

Here's something I said later:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799053&mesg_id=819028

And this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799053&mesg_id=819038

[Brigid]

19. Huh? Where are you getting this?

What I have been seeing and reading about is out-of-control cops beating people with batons until they have to be hospitalized, dragging women by their hair and grabbing their breasts, pepper-spraying people until they vomit blood, and otherwise behaving as though it's Chicago 1968 all over again. It is true that in many places the police and the protesters have had peaceful relationships, which makes me wonder what the difference. I haven't heard of any violence on the part of the protesters. Instead, in more than a few cases it seems that the cops are trying to provoke violence -- and not succeeding.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Google is your friend. I read the news. I've been down with OWS in Zucotti/Liberty Plaza Park.

I heard about the idiot who made threats to throw Molotov cocktails at Macy's and other establishments firsthand.

[Brigid]

26. So this justifies brutality against those who had nothing to do with that?

I don't think so. Find the idiot and leave the rest alone.

[ClarkUSA]

28. That's a strawman argument. I never said that. You asked, I answered.

[Brigid]

31. You don't seem to have a problem with police brutality.

:shrug:

All told, it seems to me that the protesters are far more sinned against than sinning.

[ClarkUSA]

32. You don't seem to have a problem with making ridiculous comments about people you don't know.

Have you been down at OWS NYC? I have. There is zero reason for President Obama to get involved personally. Once he gets involved, OWS becomes a political football instead of a people's movement.

[Brigid]

38. Yes, I can see your point.

But why is it that he can say that about other countries and must remain silent about what is going on here?

As for the brutality, there is still no reason for it. Catch the idiot who made the threat, arrest him, and let him stand trial. It is not the job of the cops to beat the crap out of people.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Apples and oranges. Gaddafi was threatening genocide. Syria's Assad is slaughtering his own people.

I agree with you about the brutality. I can tell you that the incidents are not the norm. I heard and read that one NYPD police chief who was caught on video doing shit has been reassigned to the Big Apple equivalent of Siberia aka. Staten Island. Catching them in the act and going to the media is key to retribution.

[Hutzpa]

42. So we can expect the same for the guy who pepper sprayed

unarmed civilians, right? Can he be made an example.

[ClarkUSA]

43. If people make as big a stink about it as we did about that NYPD chief, that could happen.

Of course, I can't possibly promise anything, but the evidence is pretty damning. That cop doesn't belong on the street. If I were one of those protesters, I'd lawyer up for a civil suit.

[ClarkUSA]

44. "U.C. Davis Calls for Investigation After Pepper Spraying" (November 19, 2011)

People are making a stink.

Police use of pepper spray on a dozen protesters at University of California, Davis, on Friday sparked calls for the resignation of the university’s chancellor and the start of an investigation into the incident.

Videos of the Davis incident uploaded to YouTube show police officers dousing the protesters — mostly students, according to local reports — with orange pepper spray, after repeatedly asking them to disperse from the main quad on campus. The protesters were seated with their arms linked on a sidewalk.

Eyewitnesses uploaded their recordings late Friday. In a statement on Saturday that acknowledged the role of the eyewitnesses in raising awareness about the police’s behavior, the university’s chancellor, Linda P.B. Katehi, said she was saddened by “the events.”

“The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this,” Ms. Katehi wrote. Her statement said that she was forming a task force and asking university officials to review existing policies about encampments like the one that was erected on the campus this week.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/video-of-police-pepper-spraying-u-c-davis-students-provokes-outrage/?hp

As the article points out, the police version of events is contrary to what actually happened.

[Hutzpa]

45. That thug/criminal should be out of uniform

I called him that because that's exactly what he is, the quicker we can rid the police force of
thugs like him the better it will be for democracy to prevail.

What he did is cold blooded, I wonder how many misfiring incidents has he had were an individual
has gotten hurt?

[ClarkUSA]

56. "Officers in pepper spray incident put on leave" (November 20, 2011)

Lots of people put on a big stink and so did the media: http://news.yahoo.com/officers-pepper-spray-incident-placed-leave-182151195.html

[Vattel]

46. There is this difference:

As chief executive, he is charged with executing federal law. Some of the rights being violated by police officers are rights that we have under the federal constitution.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Name the case law summary. What exact federal law has been broken by what exact incident?

[rug]

54. 42 USC 1983

Follow your own advice and google the incidents.

[ClarkUSA]

58. So? WTF exactly has section 1983 got to do with Pres. Obama? All you've got is empty rhetoric.

The officers were employed by the UC at Davis and are now on leave, pending further investigation by the university. Do you really think Pres. Obama has to comment on every idiot employee of universities and schools across the nation?

How outraged were you at what federal officials did at the Waco massacre? Did you demand Clinton condemn his own FUBAR decision? Did you quote section1983 then?

[rug]

59. Everything. It's a violation of federal law to deprive a person of civil rights under color of law.

And it's his constitutional obligation to enforce that law.

Don't tell me. Bull Connor was involved in a local issue.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Then why isn't anyone else insisting this besides you? Hmm?

You keep avoiding this question:

How outraged were you at what federal officials did at the Waco massacre? Did you demand Clinton condemn his ATF agents? Did you quote section 1983 then to justify your outrage at the violation of David Korish and the Branch Davidians' civil rights by Clinton's ATF? 76 people (24 of them British nationals) died in the fire, including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and the sect leader David Koresh. Aren't you outraged at that?

[rug]

75. I must be the only one on the internets who thought of it.

:eyes:

And your attempted deflection is pathetic.

[ClarkUSA]

79. Gee, I wonder why?

:rofl:


You keep avoiding this question:

How outraged were you at what federal officials did at the Waco massacre? Did you demand Clinton condemn his ATF agents? Did you quote section 1983 then to justify your outrage at the violation of David Korish and the Branch Davidians' civil rights by Clinton's ATF? 76 people (24 of them British nationals) died in the fire, including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and the sect leader David Koresh. Aren't you outraged at that?

[rug]

81. Ok, let's discuss an 18 year old incident while the state attacks protestors on a live stream.

You can start with this deposition:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Graeme_Craddock_Testimony_on_Waco_Fire

You're transparent.

[ClarkUSA]

83. Answer my questions re: Waco and Clinton's ATF. You've been avoiding it so far.

There's nothing to discuss. Just answer my questions.

[rug]

85. You brought up Waco. I'm glad you realize how ridiculous that is.

[ClarkUSA]

86. You refuse to answer my questions re: Waco. What's ridiculous is your invocation of section 1983.

[rug]

87. 1983 applies directly to the police actions you whitewash.

You asked for the statute. You got the statute. You don't like the statute. Tough shit.

[ClarkUSA]

89. That's false. Yet another strawman argument of a personal attack? Tsk tsk.

And stop pretending you have a shred of legal credibility.

[rug]

92. Lol, sputtering cliches.

It's good to see your post condensed into its essence.

Saves time.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Oh, the irony.

:rofl:

[rug]

95. And the rolling smiley cliche is the perfect ending.

[ClarkUSA]

97. cliche = your constant litany of complaints since 2008 re: Pres. Obama what he does/doesn't do

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=809210&mesg_id=809506

[Vattel]

63. The US Constitution is federal (constitutional) law

[ClarkUSA]

64. So? The officers weren't feds. They were employees of UC Davis.

On the other hand, if you want to speak about federal miscarriage of justice, what'd you think of Clinton's ATF and their massacre of 76 people at Waco? More than 20 children, two pregnant women died. How outraged were you at what federal officials did at the Waco massacre? Did you demand Clinton condemn his ATF agents? Aren't you still outraged at that?

[Vattel]

70. Many violations of federal law are committed by persons who are not feds.

So I'm not sure I see the relevance of the fact that the "officers weren't feds."

[ClarkUSA]

71. Who has been charged with a federal crime in relation to OWS?

Why don't you answer my previous question:

"On the other hand, if you want to speak about federal miscarriage of justice, what'd you think of Clinton's ATF and their massacre of 76 people at Waco? More than 20 children, two pregnant women died. How outraged were you at what federal officials did at the Waco massacre? Did you demand Clinton condemn his ATF agents? Aren't you still outraged at that?"

[Vattel]

80. Violations of constitutional rights are not necessarily crimes.

So your question is irrelevant. The ACLU is pursuing lawsuits based on the claim that constitutional rights of OWS protesters have been violated.

As for Waco, I don't know much about it, and it is hardly relevant to the issue here. I'll take your word for it that I should be outraged.

[ClarkUSA]

82. That doesn't make sense.

[Vattel]

88. What doesn't make sense?

Do you think that all violations of constitutional rights are criminal?

[ClarkUSA]

91. It's empty rhetoric. I'm not interested in your subjective opinion re: what Pres. Obama should do.

[rapturedbyrobots]

47. false equivalence

all the things you mention except 'assaulting police officers' (link please!) are examples of PROPERTY damage NOT violence. they are not even close to the same thing as beating unarmed, non-resisting protesters. get the cops out of your head.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Strawman argument.

"they are not even close to the same thing as beating unarmed, non-resisting protesters"

Who said that, besides YOU just now? Not I.

[rapturedbyrobots]

50. Apparently you've never heard of subtext or deep reading

"President Obama is NO MORE obligated to speak out on" ...A vs. B. is exactly setting up an equivalency. The underlying assumption in your framing: If one were significantly worse, then he would be obligated to condemn one but not the other. It's called reading comprehension. There's ALWAYS more to what is said than what is actually written.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Trying to justify your lame strawman argument with more strawmen blathering? Yawn.

[Chef Eric]

93. It's not a strawman argument.

Inflicting harm against a human being is not the same thing as damaging an inanimate object.

[ClarkUSA]

96. It was, indeed.

<< Inflicting harm against a human being is not the same thing as damaging an inanimate object. >>

Who said it was?

[Chef Eric]

101. You implied they were comparable by equally condemning the "wrongdoing" of both sides. nt

[ClarkUSA]

103. Wrong again. Not interested in reading the subthread started with Reply #31, eh?

I'm not interested in arguing with someone who's more interested in his/her own false opinion than in the facts.

[Chef Eric]

110. So you keep saying! But nobody else here seems to be convinced.

Maybe your argumentative skills aren't quite as effective as you think they are.

[ClarkUSA]

118. Wrong. There are plenty of people who agree with me. This OP went to the Greatest Page.

:)

[Chef Eric]

122. Yes, I'm sure there are. They're just silent. nt

[ClarkUSA]

125. Obama supporters make up a very large majority of the Democratic base. Get used to it.

BTW, DU opinion doesn't represent the majority of the liberal Democratic base. Sorry if this fact makes you grumpy.

[Chef Eric]

127. That's great, but I was talking about DUers. I think you know that.

And I'm not grumpy at all. You've amused the hell out of me.

[ClarkUSA]

129. Your "talking about DUers" is subjective opinion, which is not of interest to me.

[Chef Eric]

90. I see you've used quote marks in your reference to police brutality.

Is that because you don't believe any brutality has occurred?

[ClarkUSA]

98. Read through the subthread starting with Reply #31.

[Chef Eric]

104. O.K., so you were quoting somebody else.

Nevertheless, one does not normally use quotes for such a simple term unless he prefers not to use that term himself.

That brings me back to my original question. Do you doubt that OWS protestors have been victims of police brutality?

[ClarkUSA]

106. You didn't read the subthread starting with Reply #31, did you?

Sorry, I can't waste time on you, then.

[Chef Eric]

113. I know, you must be very busy.

There are lots of other people here that are calling you on your B.S.

It must take a lot of time to reply to them all.

[ClarkUSA]

120. This OP went to the Greatest Page, dear.

That should say something about "your B.S."

[Chef Eric]

126. It belongs on the greatest page.

Your nonsense can be quite entertaining to people, at least every once in a while.

[ClarkUSA]

128. Whenever Pres. Obama's actions debunks demonizing memes, I get attacked for posting it.

Yes, that sort of "nonsense can be quite entertaining to people, at least every once in a while."

[Hutzpa]

7. But but this was said before the police started using pepper spray

on unarmed students.

He needs to make another clearer statement just as he did on the Egyptian protest.

[ClarkUSA]

8. See Reply #6.

[Nancy Waterman]

24. Did you notice he has been out of the counrty?

xx

[Hutzpa]

35. I sure did and also saw his photos at the Asia summit.

On Edit
I should also add that I love them all, but he needs to say something about this police
brutality that is beginning to creep into our society, beating unarmed civilians and using
pepper spray on them is not democracy.

These people have every right to protest, it is their civil rights.

We are preaching democracy to the world but cannot practice democracy on our own land.

[catgirl]

22. K&R

[boomerbust]

52. Great Mr. President!

Now slap on those Nikes and OCCUPY Wisconsin like you promised during the last campaign.

[JNelson6563]

53. Saying he gets it isn't enough!

We need him on the streets! Or at least bitching big time on the internets!!1!

Julie

[Enrique]

55. graph

[ClarkUSA]

57. "Obama: I'll fight to protect Wall Street reform"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x713807

[Skittles]

102. tip

pay attention to what he DOES, not what he SAYS

[ClarkUSA]

108. I have. I'm not the one who mocks his list of achievements. You do that.

[Skittles]

119. no one says he has no achievements

but if you think he has done the best he can do for us you have your head up your ass

[ClarkUSA]

121. You mock his singular successes. "If you" don't "think he has done the best he can do for us"...

..."you have your head up your ass"

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

130. No, I'm an Obama supporter who rises above sneering jibes by his 24/7 critics.

[Skittles]

133. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Skittles]

137. WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seventy-eight years later, the Obama administration has Shaun Donovan, secretary of housing and urban development; the economic adviser Gene Sperling; and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. dialing liberals, activists and bloggers, urging them to pressure the rebellious attorneys general to forgo emotionally satisfying inquiries and take the deal. Banks make money and find loopholes, the president noted last month. These actions aren’t “necessarily against the law.”

That raises the question: How does he know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/nyregion/patience-grows-thin-for-banks-foreclosure-excuses.html?_r=4&scp=1&sq=judge%20%22bank%20of%20america%22%20disgusting&st=cse


HE PIMPS FOR THEM - that how he "knows"

[woo me with science]

99. Wow. Stunning graphic.

Thank you.

[ClarkUSA]

111. Yes, the lack of a link to a source is remarkable.

[woo me with science]

117. Oh, Clark....

I wouldn't bring up the topic of sources if I were you. :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

123. At least I link to sources, though some folks seem to have reading comprehension problems.

:rofl:

[woo me with science]

135. ...

You mean like all these people? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x807070

Oh, Clark. This pattern is really very sad.

[former9thward]

60. There is no quotation at the link.

Where is a link where Obama says he "sympathizes with protesters' broad grievances"?

[ClarkUSA]

61. It's quite clear from the bolded text that I am quoting the author of the article.

[former9thward]

66. And the author quoted himself not Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

67. No, I quoted the author in my OP. What's your problem? It's a valid interpetation.

[former9thward]

140. It is not a valid interpretation at all.

There is no evidence that Obama has that viewpoint.

[MNBrewer]

68. What a "fierce advocate' HE'S turned out to be

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

69. Nothing President Obama says or does ever escapes your jeering, it seems.

No matter. Obama supporters easily outnumber his 24/7 critics within the Democratic Party. :D

"President Obama’s base of support remains solid heading into 2012"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x819472

[MNBrewer]

72. Make that "Nothing ClarkUSA ever posts" and I'll agree with you

[ClarkUSA]

73. I post facts about President Obama and will continue to do so. It beats demonizing him with lies.

[MNBrewer]

74. LOL

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

77. Thanks for kicking my OP!

:rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

76. Apparently he's been "paying close attention" via Homeland Security...

The Police Executive Research Forum, an international non-governmental organization with ties to law enforcement and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has been coordinating conference calls with major metropolitan mayors and police chiefs to advise them on policing matters and discuss response to the Occupy movement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2340717&mesg_id=2340717

NGU.

[ClarkUSA]

78. From your own source: "The White House says there’s no federal oversight."

If you haven't been paying attention, Pres. Obama has been very busy for the nine days prior to this weekend whilst overseas halfway across the world checkmating China via a new Asia-Pacific dynamic via two global summits and visits to three Pacific rim allies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

84. Too bad that the DU ODSers proclaim that Obama=Bush. It's patently ridiculous! K&R!!!!

[Skittles]

100. pretty wishy-washy stuff

[woo me with science]

109. Not only wishy-washy, but also not a quote from Obama,

as the headline suggests...

The date on this one is from this week, though. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

116. OH TEH OUTRAGE!!!

[ClarkUSA]

114. As if anything he says or does ever satisfies you.

[woo me with science]

134. It's really terrible

how mean everyone is to Obama.

(By the way, here's a good post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2345652&mesg_id=2346268)

[woo me with science]

105. THAT IS NOT A QUOTE FROM OBAMA.

Sheesh, Clark.

I was being so careful to check the date on this article that I almost didn't notice that THIS IS NOT A QUOTE FROM OBAMA.

Good grief.

[ClarkUSA]

107. I DID NOT SAY IT WAS.

Reading is fundamental.

[woo me with science]

112. "Pres. Obama said he 'sympathizes with protesters' broad grievances;"

Sheesh, Clark.

Here we go again.

[ClarkUSA]

115. Go complain to the author of the article. His interpretation is valid. Your hairsplitting is boring

[woo me with science]

131. No, what's getting tiresome here is a pattern in which source material does not reflect

the message a typical reader will take from the headline.

As you have already been told, dates on articles are important. People tend to assume that triumphant announcements of new policies come from articles that are less than six months old and reflect policies that actually were implemented.

Similarly, use of the words, "Person A said," in a headline tends to make people think that what follows in quotes was actually said by Person A.

Once again, it's a real shame, Clark.

[ClarkUSA]

132. Yawn.

:nopity:

[woo me with science]

136. That's called attempting to co-opt the language of the movement.

We will see a lot of that before the election as OWS grows. It is not to be confused with actually taking steps in support of OWS goals.

Fortunately, OWS is strongly aware of and resistant to such co-opting by politicians who are part of the problem. OWS has been very clear that they do not align with either party. They align themselves against a corrupt system of corporate and banking influence that has enabled purchase of both Democrats and Republicans so that the one percent can feed upon the rest of us.

Whether Obama tries to claim to support OWS or not is really irrelevant here. What is relevant is that he cannot even bring himself to make a clear statement condemning violence against peaceful American protesters by our own police forces. He was able to do it for Egypt, yet he cannot manage it for his own country's citizens.

For god's sake, even Forbes Magazine was able to do it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2351891

[Enrique]

138. maybe if the protesters' "broad grievances" include that banks get prosecuted TOO MUCH

maybe then it could be said that Obama sympathizes with them.