Skip to content

Occupy Wall Street Whiners: A Bunch of Hypocrites, Morons

October 7, 2011

I posted the following comment on a Facebook group.

Wall Street is LIBERAL and has been in cahoots with the government, especially the Obama administration. Wall Street received bailout money and that makes it ANTI-CAPITALISTIC. Wall Street is all about CRONY SOCIALISM. Capitalism is NOT corporatism or the merger of government and corporate interests. Wall Street begged for bailout (TARP) money. The Wall Street gangs benefited from it. Warren Buffett who’s now advising Obama on his tax plan profited billions through Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs that received bailout money.

However, there were companies that refused to receive bailout money like BB&T bank and Ford. What happened to those companies that received bailout money like Chrysler and GM? They’re still struggling while Ford that refused to get government money became more successful.

The advocates of capitalism in America (composed of companies, hedge fund moguls, academics and NGOs) protested against government bailout. They mocked the “too big to fail” philosophy of both the bush and the Obama admins.

The leftist thugs thought they’re protesting against capitalism and businesses, but in fact and in reality the real enemy is CRONY SOCIALISM that is WALL STREET! The ignorance and idiocy of the Wall Street protesters have also infected flips in RP.

Free Republic listed 11 reasons why Occupy Wall Street protesters are hypocrites and idiots. They are as follows:

  1. Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry that the big Wall Street banks “have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give executives exorbitant bonuses.”Well, if Barack Obama and John McCain had not aggressively pushed for the Wall Street bailouts back in 2008, they never would have happened.  After Obama took office, he rammed through even more bailouts.  The reality is that you could easily call Barack Obama “the king of the Wall Street bailouts”.
  2. Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry that the big Wall Street banks “have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.” Yet they ignore the fact that 3 of the top 7 donorsto Obama’s campaign in 2008 were the very Wall Street banks that the Occupy Wall Street movement is protesting.Once again, Barack Obama will be taking in huge amounts of money from the wealthy and from big Wall Street banks for his run in 2012.So why aren’t they complaining about that?
  3. One of the big themes of the Occupy Wall Street protests is the fact that Wall Street has way too much influence and power over the federal government.
  4. Occupy Wall Street says that it is deeply concerned about the rampant corruption in our financial system.The Federal Reserve is the very heart and soul of our financial system, and yet there has been very little real criticism of the Fedby Occupy Wall Street protesters.If Occupy Wall Street truly wanted to do something about our financial system they would be calling for the Federal Reserve to be shut down.But their hero, Barack Obama, actually nominated Ben Bernanke for a second term as Federal Reserve Chairman and Obama continues to support him 100 percent even after a horrible track record of failures that is legendary.
  5. Occupy Wall Street says that it is angry that big corporations “have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.”This issue alone should be enough for Occupy Wall Street to call for Barack Obama to resign.The Obama administration has pushed very hard for new “free trade” agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia and the Obama administration is currently making the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“the NAFTA of the Pacific“) a very high priority.

    This picture says it all. It shows The difference between those socialists protesting wall street and the rest of us, We are the 53% ..(the 53% of us that actually pay taxes!) It says: I am a former Marine I work 2 jobs I dont have health insurance I worked 60-70 hrs a week for 8 years to pay my way through college I havent had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years But I dont blame Wall Street Suck it up you whiners I am the 53%.

    The Obama administration has been very aggressively trying to expand the “free trade” policies that are costing us millions of jobs.

    In fact, members of the Obama administration run around and openly talk about how there are things that “we don’t want to make in America”.

    For example, the following is what U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk recently told Tim Robertson of the Huffington Post about the Obama administration’s attitude toward keeping manufacturing jobs in America….

    Let’s increase our competitiveness… the reality is about half of our imports, our trade deficit is because of how much oil [we import], so you take that out of the equation, you look at what percentage of it are things that frankly, we don’t want to make in America, you know, cheaper products, low-skill jobs that frankly college kids that are graduating from, you know, UC Cal and Hastings [don't want], but what we do want is to capture those next generation jobs and build on our investments in our young people, our education infrastructure.

    Unions should be screaming bloody murder about this.

    But instead they are going to line up behind Barack Obama once again in 2012 like good little sheeple.

  6. Occupy Wall Street says that the big health insurance companies “have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.”Well, as I have written about previously, the health insurance companies helped to write huge portions of Obamacare.  Instead of reducing the power of health insurance companies, Obamacare actually gives them more power and will actually increase their profits.  The sad truth is that large portions of Obamacare are virtually identical to a bill that was written by the health insurance trade association in 2009.  Under Obamacare, our health care costs will go up even faster and the quality of our health care will continue to go down.
  7. Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry because the big banks “have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.”Occupy Wall Street is correct about this.So where has Barack Obama been on this issue?  The reality is that the Obama administration has done very little about the horrific foreclosure abuses that have been going on.
  8. Occupy Wall Street is upset that “our privacy” has been sold “as a commodity.”Well, why aren’t Occupy Wall Street protesters calling out Barack Obama for his horrific track record on civil liberties.The national security apparatus that George W. Bush set up has been greatly expanded by Barack Obama.
  9. Occupy Wall Street is angry that the United States has “perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.”Oh really?Under Barack Obama, the U.S. military has been used as the “police of the world” even more than it was under George W. Bush.Under Obama, the war in Afghanistan was greatly expanded and the U.S. military began bombing the living daylights out of Libya.  In addition, under Obama the U.S. military has been conducting air strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.Today, there is a U.S. military base in over half of the countries on the planet and U.S. military spending is more than 7 times larger than the military spending of any other nation on earth.So if “the left” was angry at George W. Bush for what he did, then why aren’t they filled with rage at Barack Obama for his policies?
  10. Occupy Wall Street is angry that the U.S. has “participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.”Well, Barack Obama did not shut down Guantanamo Bayas he promised to do.So where is the accountability?Under George W. Bush, millions of “evangelical Christians” were cheering for torture.Today, millions of “liberals” are cheering while the Obama administration conducts “enhanced interrogations” of prisoners and performs “extraordinary renditions” in foreign countries.If liberals want to complain about “torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas”, it isn’t the Republicans they should be angry at.

    Barack Obama is running our foreign policy, and he should be held accountable for what is going on.

  11. Occupy Wall Street is angry because the wealthy are not paying their “fair share” of taxes.Well, it is undeniable that many big corporations (such as Obama’s good friends over at GE) quite often get away with paying no taxes at all.But Barack Obama and the Democrats controlled the White House and all of Congress for two whole years.So why didn’t they “fix” the tax code while they had the chance?Could it be that they actually likethe current system?The truth is that our current tax system is so flawed, so complex and so full of holes that it needs to be thrown out entirely.
About these ads
49 Comments leave one →
  1. AngryMuch permalink
    October 7, 2011 3:38

    Sounds like you are a big fan of the Occupy Wall Street people since you pretty much agree with them that the current system is messed up. All your points are really about Obama, not about Occupy Wall Street. I am pretty sure they are not exactly happy with Obama.

    • October 8, 2011 3:38

      Really? These occupy morons are against business, capitalism, limited government and lower taxes. They’re leftist hippies. And there’s no proof- no statement- that they oppose Obama. In fact, Obama said: “I think it (Occupy Wall Street protest) the frustrations that American people feel. That we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across mainstream.” He sympathized with these pro-BIG GOVERNMENT morons. Of course you don’t understand that because you think like these people do.

      I agree with the sentiments of the Tea Part protest: limited government, lower taxes, less regulations, capitalism, and economic freedom. These are NOT what the Occupy Wall Street protesters want. They want more freebies, more welfare from the government, more government powers, more regulations. You don’t have any idea at all.

  2. Xoce Rixjal permalink
    October 10, 2011 3:38

    Aren’t you ignoring the fact that the bailouts started under the Bush Administration? And that the invasion of Iraq happened under the Bush Administration? Has the Obama Administration done anything as large (or catastrophic) as that war? Has the bombings in the countries you mentioned done anything that has caused as much damage as the Iraq war has to the countries involved?

    You repeat your lines of limited government, lower taxes, less regulations, capitalism, and economic freedom over and over again in most of your posts and yet you either blithely ignore or worse, deny the potential harm that these practices can do.

    The deregulation of the banks, beginning with Ronald Reagan’s policies in the 1980′s and supported by every administration since, whether Democratic or Republican, caused the creation of the markets and vehicles that finally caused the collapse of the US and European economies in 2008. The bailouts you rail against were a bitter pill, but one that was necessary. BB&T, by the way RECEIVED $ 3.1B in bailout money in 2008. Ford refused bailout money, but it also was in a less dangerous spot to begin with. Please get your facts straight.

    The tax cuts effected during the Bush Administration have affected the balance of payments of the US government, which was balanced, by the way, by President Bill Clinton. As a result, the US government has amassed an estimated $ 200T total liability, which some economists now see as nearly unpayable without some form of revenue generating action.

    The tax cuts that were given affected the wealthiest of the country, not the middle class, thus, the tax burdens on these people actually increased. The economic freedom granted these banks did not lead them to the decisions you assume they would make; instead, they gambled, creating highly risky vehicles which, eventually, collapsed. So, would you argue then that less regulation would actually help? If their previous decisions led to a disaster, would you assume that they would act differently if given even greater freedom? Wouldn’t that be a risky thing, at least?

    You talk of removing the Fed (or central bank) and allowing the banks to work things out in the market. That was precisely what the Fed was doing for the past 20 years. By steadily removing the regulations from the banks, it opened the opportunity for them to start making riskier and riskier decisions. Did you see reason operate? Did reason tell them that they were already risking too much and that the potential for disaster was getting larger and larger? If that were the case, wouldn’t they have moderated their own actions long before 2008?

    Economic freedom cannot be absolute. Even Adam Smith knew that. His discussion of lassiez faire economics was, after all, directed towards HEADS OF STATE. There is the inherent danger of, given that we cannot have perfect information nor are we perfectly reasonable (another thing you will deny, I’m sure. But read your blog, you’re an example of this.) that lapses in judgement will be made. Regulation is necessary, it is the degree of it that is debatable.

    You also ignore the fact that government is supposed to be for the ENTIRE POPULATION, including those who do not have the means or ability to fend for themselves. You’d probably say, “Fuck ‘em, they’re useless anyway”. But understand that, without safeguards, a purely free economy would easily kill these people. Yes, there are some things that government should get it’s hands off of, but these must be determined carefully so that the good of all is preserved.

    Y’know what, Froi? I’m done. You can post all you want, you can say all you want. Call me as many names as you want. You simply aren’t worth it. I’ve read through this blog and the argumentation and quality of analysis has not improved. Instead, the faulty thinking is padded by volume, repetition, polemics, and namecalling. The discourse here is worthless. You can’t even be bothered to read through your posts for grammatical errors.

    So, good bye and good riddance.

    • October 10, 2011 3:38

      You’re a moron, dum-dum…

      I said above: “The advocates of capitalism in America (composed of companies, hedge fund moguls, academics and NGOs) protested against government bailout. They mocked the “too big to fail” philosophy of both the bush and the Obama admins.”

      You’re becoming so obvious, dum-dum…

      • Xoce Rixjal permalink
        October 11, 2011 3:38

        You erased my reply again? My, my, we’re getting antsy.

    • GabbyD permalink
      October 10, 2011 3:38

      xoce,

      i’m still very curious how he KNOWS he’s right. i dont know, havent read any evidence based analysis.

      but it is a consistent philosophy. basically, everything in the modern world is a failure in his eyes, because the history of the world’s most successful economies is the history of the state and the private sector WORKING TOGETHER.

      he assumes its right. its faith for him. but how he is able to kling to his faith, in the midst to so much theoretical and empirical arguments to the contrary is a mystery.

      • October 10, 2011 3:38

        LMAO to that! That’s a pure gibberish. It doesn’t make sense at all.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 10, 2011 3:38

        whats gibberish to you?

        being more substantive: is there anything good in the modern world for you? anything that validates your beliefs?

    • terence_18 permalink
      October 12, 2011 3:38

      moron

  3. Rain permalink
    October 10, 2011 3:38

    @GabbyD
    so, what is right? Pls. enlighten me!

    • GabbyD permalink
      October 11, 2011 3:38

      depends on what the question is. free markets and privatization are powerful forces, but they dont always do what are *supposed* do do.

  4. October 11, 2011 3:38

    http://i.imgur.com/oX84G.jpg

    • October 11, 2011 3:38

      That’s pure idiocy indeed. Slavery was/is created by the government- or Big Government. Corporations pay for their workers. Businesses pay for their workers. But if a certain business entity were involved in slavery or slave activities, then it’s the proper duty and role of the government to punish the guilty and save the innocent. The Occupy Wall Street is for modern form of slavery by using arbitrary government powers to redistribute wealth. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 11, 2011 3:38

        slavery was created by govt? you mean the africans were taken as slaves by the US govt?

        do you know why the civil war was fought?

      • October 11, 2011 3:38

        If you understand your history, the world descended from slavery. Slavery was institutionalized by governments and/or societies. There was institutionalized slavery from the reign of the Egyptian pharaohs to the barbaric rule of the Romans to the Dark Ages and so on…

        There was a contradiction in the foundation of America. Its Constitution declares that every man is equal but the government institutionalized slavery. Thus, the Civil War was a just war because the Union victory against their pro-slavery opponents abolished slavery. Only governments and societies could establish slavery through laws, edicts and social measures. You still don’t understand because you’re a moron?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 11, 2011 3:38

        lets not talk about ancient societies. lets stick with antebellum US.

        in what sense did the southern states’s govt institutionalize slavery? do you mean — before the govt allowed it, private citizens didnt own slaves? thats not true.

        the civil war was fought for the right for citizens to own slaves. do you have a different account of the US civil war?

      • October 12, 2011 3:38

        That’s why there was a civil war because of slavery, moron! Still you don’t get the point, moron? Slavery cannot be instituted without the sanction of society and/or government. That’s why there were slave-owners in the South and that slavery was OUTLAWED. When something is outlawed, it means that something is part of the law or institution.

        From this source: “The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war fought in the United States of America. In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, eleven southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America (“the Confederacy”); the other 25 states supported the federal government (“the Union”). After four years of warfare, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation. Issues that led to war were partially resolved in the Reconstruction Era that followed, though others remained unresolved.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

        Stop being a moron, moron.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 12, 2011 3:38

        “When something is outlawed, it means that something is part of the law or institution.”

        OMG. you cant mean that.

        prohibition in the US outlawed alcohol.

        is alcohol part of the “law” or “institution”?

      • October 12, 2011 3:38

        You’re not just a moron but totally insane. It was outlawed when states passed a law abolishing slavery, moron!

        1780 Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states.

        1783 Massachusetts rules slavery illegal based on 1780 constitution.[16] All slaves immediately freed.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

        Slavery outlawed 1777 Constitution Prohibited adult slavery. However, slavery existed in some parts of the State until the 1780s.
        Slave trade 1779 Statute Prohibited the sale of enslaved persons outside the State against their will.
        Shipping/slave trade 1787 Statute Prohibited ships from engaging in the slave trade, with a fine of 1,000 pounds per ship. This law could be easily avoided, however, by registering the ship in another state.
        Enslavement 1791 Constitution No person could be a servant or slave after the age of 21 unless by his own consent or in payment of debt or fines.
        Slave trade 1792 Statute Legislature passed “an Act to prohibit the Importation of Slaves from Africa, or other places beyond the sea, into this state, for two years.”
        Slave trade 1800 Statute It was illegal to bring in slaves from offshore, and no one could bring in more than ten slaves from anywhere in the nation.
        Fugitive slaves 1840 Statute It instituted trial by jury to defend fugitive slaves. Law was repealed in 1843 but renewed in 1850.
        Fugitive slaves 1843 Statute A “personal liberty” law prohibited state officials from aiding the recapture of fugitive slaves and carried penalties up to $1,000 in fines and up to five years imprisonment.
        Kidnapping 1854 Statute It was illegal to kidnap a free person with an attempt to remove him from the State as a slave.
        Citizenship 1858 Statute Declared that African descent did not disqualify blacks from citizenship in the State. Freed any black who entered the State, with or without permission of his master, and made holding another person as a slave punishable by 1-15 years in prison and fines up to $2,000.
        http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_laws_VT.htm

        http://history1800s.about.com/od/slaveryinamerica/a/1807slaveact.htm

        WALA NA. MAY SIRA KA NA TALAGA SA UTAK…lol!

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 12, 2011 3:38

        oh, no doubt slavery was outlawed.

        i think you should think about “When something is outlawed, it means that something is part of the law or institution.”

        replace “something” with another word, and you get something non-sensical.

        eg.” When murder is outlawed, it means that murder is part of the law”

        ano?!

      • October 12, 2011 3:38

        It may or may not be part of the law or institution and/or tradition. I don’t need to be very specific here because that’d waste my time.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 12, 2011 3:38

        being “specific”. no. its about being correct. you have time to write down something correct, as opposed to incorrect.

        your argument is wrong. your argument about the circumstances of US slavery is wrong.

      • October 13, 2011 3:38

        Hey moron, I’ve already pawned your idiocy about slavery and the history of American slavery. It seems that you’ve got some mental problem.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 13, 2011 3:38

        really you have? please cut and paste the part where u have shown that the gov’t institutionalized slavery in the US. please.

        if anything, it OUTLAWED slavery. thats the opposite of what u are saying.

      • October 13, 2011 3:38

        Let me ask you, MORON… Why were Americans allowed to own slaves during the slavery era in the U.S.? Why were they NOT penalized?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 13, 2011 3:38

        because of slaves werent considered people, but property. next question…

      • October 13, 2011 3:38

        LMAO! ULOL TALAGA ANG BOPOLS.

        Oh yeah! That’s why they’re considered slaves. So they they were regarded as mere property and why didn’t the Fed penalize those who owned slaves?

      • October 13, 2011 3:38

        Gabby MORON…

        Here are my proof that slavery was INSTITUTIONALIZED in America. If you still don’t get it, better commit suicide, moron…

        Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: It was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

        “When slavery of blacks became institutionalized in the U.S., however, anti-miscegenation laws surfaced which barred such unions, thereby stigmatizing them.” — http://racerelations.about.com/od/interracialrelationships/a/InterracialRelationshipsIssues.htm

        Chronology Of The History Of Slavery: 1619-1789 — http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html

        South Carolina Slave Laws Summary and Record— http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_laws_SC.htm

        Slavery in the United States — http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

      • October 16, 2011 3:38

        What do you understand about the Fugitive Slave Act? Are trying to argue that the American government didn’t pass slave laws in the past?

    • GabbyD permalink
      October 13, 2011 3:38

      i c. so “institutionalize” means making laws. if you read some of your links, you’ll see that slavery existed and was rampant BEFORE laws were written to regulate (REGULATE!) slavery.

      so, yes, laws were written — confirming the existence of slavery and protecting the interests of the property owners.

      but what you said originally was: “That’s pure idiocy indeed. Slavery was/is created by the government- or Big Government.”

      so i thought “institutionalize” was the govt “creating” slavery. this is obviously wrong.

      • October 14, 2011 3:38

        You’re indeed a moron. There’s no use arguing with you, moron.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 15, 2011 3:38

        ah, so DID the govt create slavery?

        obviously NOT.

      • October 16, 2011 3:38

        Why not go to North Korea to prove your point?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 16, 2011 3:38

        why would i go to NoKOR? do you live there?

        so did the govt CREATE slavery? yes or no?

      • October 16, 2011 3:38

        You have to go their to prove my and your point. What/who did then if not the government/society/any-societal-institution?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 16, 2011 3:38

        ah, now you are conflating society and government?

        society, without government, had slavery for years. government, MODERN government, came much later.

      • October 16, 2011 3:38

        Are you saying that the ancient Egyptians didn’t have a government? What’s your definition/concept of government, moron?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 16, 2011 3:38

        why do you keep invoking ancient empires when we are talking about the US colonies?

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 16, 2011 3:38

        did the US govt (prior to the civil war) CREATE SLAVERY?

        yes or no?

        they made laws, ONLY AFTER slavery had been going on for years.

      • October 17, 2011 3:38

        Oh! You didn’t see my post above…

        What do you understand about the Fugitive Slave Act? Are trying to argue that the American government didn’t pass slave laws in the past?

        The US states institutionalized slavery through the passage of slave laws, moron.

        Like I said MORON: “If you understand your history, the world descended from slavery. Slavery was institutionalized by governments and/or societies. There was institutionalized slavery from the reign of the Egyptian pharaohs to the barbaric rule of the Romans to the Dark Ages and so on…”

  5. Xoce Rixjal permalink
    October 11, 2011 3:38

    Readers: Oh, just don’t forget that Froi is now equating the Occupy Wall Street movement with slavery, don’t get distracted by the sidetrack to ancient history. Froi, can you please enlighten us “morons” about just how any movement trying to call for a more even distribution of wealth is tantamount to slavery?

    • GabbyD permalink
      October 12, 2011 3:38

      thats a good point xoce, but i wanted to raise a more fundamental objection, EVEN IF the philosophy is right.

      lets ASSUME his belief is right, for argument’s sake — that the “government”/”state” “institutionalized” slavery.

      lets inspect each of these terms to make sure we understand them. so first, to make things EASY, lets not go to ancient cultures where, we arent even sure “government” or “state” mean anything.

      focus on antebellum USA, where at least, the term government and state is well-defined. froi’s argument is that the govt institutionalized slavery.

      i think what froi wants to say is this: my philosophy states that all people are equal. governments should follow this philosophy, independently of what the people actually believe (this is not true, but lets go with it).

      my philosophy also states that people should be allowed to do what they want. but what is what they *want* is to own people?

      essentially, the war of the north IS REDISTRIBUTION, away from the slave owners, and to the slaves.

      YET… redistribution is also slavery???

      my point is that his philosophy can quite easily contradict itself.

      he can *save* his philosophy by saying that human lives are the exception. But where is the line exactly? If owning people is wrong, what about other things? what about a large debt? how about catastrophic illness? would these thing act “as if” you were a slave? what about long-term employment contracts? exclusive deals? what about denial of service because of religion, or race?

      this can be quite complicated, and i wonder if froi thinks its complex, and life isnt as black and white as he alleges.

      • October 12, 2011 3:38

        It’s because both of you are morons. Like Thomas Paine said, “Arguing with people who have lost all sense of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 12, 2011 3:38

        froi, at this point you arent even trying. c’mon. make an argument that makes sense. take a day. think about it.

      • GabbyD permalink
        October 13, 2011 3:38

        what happened to xoce’s comment? cmon, you dont have to delete comments. we’re trying to help u come up with a better argument.

      • October 13, 2011 3:38

        Moron, I deleted them… and he’s banned from commenting on my site. This site is mine and mine alone, moron.

        I tell you, you’re the most moronic commenter I’ve ever had. Nice try.

    • donya permalink
      October 15, 2011 3:38

      Distribution? to who ? you wont get nothing instead you will be mark as anarchist!

  6. donya permalink
    October 15, 2011 3:38

    What has come to the world? people are getting so desperate, they protest to anything they don’t even know what for. In the long run, the result will backfire and we will suffer the consequence. Parang nakikita ko na ang kahihinatnan nitong protest na ito at tayong mga small people ang mag hihirap.

    Froi I am with you, I have more to say but for some reason my account was deleted. cho

Trackbacks

  1. Wall Street!: How I learned to ignore the causers and just support the cause. | The Silver Tongue

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers

%d bloggers like this: