Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Pwns wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oba ... 6d718ab7b9

Any particular reason that I should believe that these speeches (whether given by Obama or Hillary or whoever) are anything other than just a sneaky way to transfer money to candidates? Am I really supposed to believe they paid mid six figures for a speech about health care for a guy that isn't an expert on it?

Just like Eric Holder and his temporary and cushy Wall Street job.

At least Republicans don't pretend to be the party of reigning in Wall Street and the big banks.

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oba ... 6d718ab7b9

Any particular reason that I should believe that these speeches (whether given by Obama or Hillary or whoever) are anything other than just a sneaky way to transfer money to candidates? Am I really supposed to believe they paid mid six figures for a speech about health care for a guy that isn't an expert on it?

Just like Eric Holder and his temporary and cushy Wall Street job.

At least Republicans don't pretend to be the party of reigning in Wall Street and the big banks.

What's Obama running for?

Republicans pretend to be the party of competition and free markets...

kalm wrote:
What's Obama running for?

Republicans pretend to be the party of competition and free markets...

Pwns wrote:

kalm wrote:
What's Obama running for?

Republicans pretend to be the party of competition and free markets...

Nothing, but often when services are provided payment comes after the service is given.

Why are you sticking up for Obama, here?

SDHornet wrote:He's gotta cash in for not prosecuting any Wall Streeters following the collapse. Can't blame him for it.

Oh and at anyone actually thinking he gives a **** for the common man.

houndawg wrote:

SDHornet wrote:He's gotta cash in for not prosecuting any Wall Streeters following the collapse. Can't blame him for it.

Oh and at anyone actually thinking he gives a **** for the common man.

That's how I'm thinking - unless he comes up with a surprise donation of some kind like donating toward bringing back the trend of bankers falling out of windows that was going around a while back...
.

Obama’s job was to talk like a marxist, but act like a robber baron. In this regard, his reign has been an unprecedented success.......

Denial is an extremely powerful thing, and tens of millions of Democrats were completely bamboozled by Obama due to their personal obsession with the man. This is precisely why cult of personality worship is so dangerous and counterproductive when it comes to politics. We need to grow up as a culture and start supporting policies over people, logic over emotion. If you become attached to a politician or a political party like a sports team, that individual or institution can very easily manipulate and betray you. We see this over and over again, and until we move to a higher level of understanding about the world around us, we will continue to be victimized by disingenuous, opportunistic shysters.

For virtually his whole Presidency, President Obama operated according to a Hamiltonian worldview in which social justice and concentrated capital went hand-in-hand, where technocracy was seen as superior to democracy.

kalm wrote:And here's the link to the Stoller piece.

https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/obam ... 301d5c19ee

For virtually his whole Presidency, President Obama operated according to a Hamiltonian worldview in which social justice and concentrated capital went hand-in-hand, where technocracy was seen as superior to democracy.

It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.

kalm wrote:

houndawg wrote:


That's how I'm thinking - unless he comes up with a surprise donation of some kind like donating toward bringing back the trend of bankers falling out of windows that was going around a while back...
.

These two posts ^^^^^^^^

Here's an excellent piece on the hamiltonian nature of Obushma including some excerpts from a Matt Stoller article which is also quite good.

Obama’s job was to talk like a marxist, but act like a robber baron. In this regard, his reign has been an unprecedented success.......

Denial is an extremely powerful thing, and tens of millions of Democrats were completely bamboozled by Obama due to their personal obsession with the man. This is precisely why cult of personality worship is so dangerous and counterproductive when it comes to politics. We need to grow up as a culture and start supporting policies over people, logic over emotion. If you become attached to a politician or a political party like a sports team, that individual or institution can very easily manipulate and betray you. We see this over and over again, and until we move to a higher level of understanding about the world around us, we will continue to be victimized by disingenuous, opportunistic shysters.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-2 ... d-everyone

kalm wrote:And here's the link to the Stoller piece.

https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/obam ... 301d5c19ee

For virtually his whole Presidency, President Obama operated according to a Hamiltonian worldview in which social justice and concentrated capital went hand-in-hand, where technocracy was seen as superior to democracy.

It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:And here's the link to the Stoller piece.

https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/obam ... 301d5c19ee



It's somewhat akin to prosperity theology.

The Hamiltonian thing is bunk, though, because he operated just like a classic Jeffersonian. He embraced all the things that people criticized Hamilton for (e.g. financial systems, executive power) and castigated the other side as immoral and evil while at the same time claiming to be a true republican (lower case) and a man of the people. That's essentially what Jefferson did in the early days of the Republic - Obama was much more a Jeffersonian and than a Hamilton-like. Again, history fails some people.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
The Hamiltonian thing is bunk, though, because he operated just like a classic Jeffersonian. He embraced all the things that people criticized Hamilton for (e.g. financial systems, executive power) and castigated the other side as immoral and evil while at the same time claiming to be a true republican (lower case) and a man of the people. That's essentially what Jefferson did in the early days of the Republic - Obama was much more a Jeffersonian and than a Hamilton-like. Again, history fails some people.

Hamilton wasn't cozy with a strong federal
Government and entrenched wealth?

Jjoey52 wrote:He was neither Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian, Obama was douchebagolian.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote:There are common strands with both.

You can't make a historical comparison without gannon jumping on you over any differences (though, he's happy to make his own imperfect historical analogies)

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Hamilton wasn't cozy with a strong federal
Government and entrenched wealth?

Cozy with and advocated for are different things - besides, it was entrenched wealth (Clinton and Jefferson among others) that opposed Hamilton. Regardless, he didn't throw on sackcloth and try to pass himself off in public as a simple man directly from the people while privately - that was the Jeffersonian tactic that was a pretty significant difference.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Cozy with and advocated for are different things - besides, it was entrenched wealth (Clinton and Jefferson among others) that opposed Hamilton. Regardless, he didn't throw on sackcloth and try to pass himself off in public as a simple man directly from the people while privately - that was the Jeffersonian tactic that was a pretty significant difference.

Rhetoric notwithstanding, what about their actions?

Isn't that the author's critique? Obama was rhetorically a man of the people but in practice, his policies were Hamiltonian?