[Big Mac]

Obama attends New York fund-raiser hosted by Ricky Martin and attended by gay, lesbian and Latino leaders - NYPOST.com

Obama attended a second fund-raising event yesterday at the home of Blackstone hedge-fund mogul Hamilton James. Sixty guests paid $35,800 each to attend.

Millionaires and billionaires are good for political donations, and they're doubly good for class warfare demagoguery. But we know Socialists will be hypocrites.

Hope and Change. Hope and Change. Fundamental transformation of America! We hear you, Comrade!

[subego]

Wut?

[Athens]

I don't understand ?

[Big Mac]

Not too surprising.

[Athens]

hey... We have been on good terms for a while now. Don't ruin it

I don't get what point you are trying to make. Just seems to be a rant.

[olePigeon]

I'm confused, as well. Is Ricky Martin a communist?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not too surprising.

You're just throwing out dots. Do some connecting for us.

[Big Mac]

Okay. Obama's a damnable hypocrite. He's also a cheap demagogue. He vilifies the rich while taking rich people's money to wage war on other rich people, merely to bolster his own political power. He's going to run a really despicable, low down campaign because the world economy is circling the drain again. His playbook is going to be 1) Blame Romney for being rich; 2) Try to cast Romney as Bush; 3) Stoke class antagonism; 4) Suck cock for more campaign cash. His only non-marginal accomplishment is authorizing the Bin Laden raid, which he gloats about as if he actually led with an assault rifle in his hand the campaign on the ground, and which wouldn't have been possible but for the WoT waged by President Bush.

It's going to be a revolting political season. The question is, are the American people gullible enough to give this soft tyrant (who has already signaled he's going to be selling US and our allies out in his second term even more, moving much further to the left after his final election) another four years in which to do nothing about the country's dire fiscal, political and defense threats.

I'm sorry for the subtle shot, Athens. I hope this is sufficient explication of my point.

[Athens]

Much better. And boy am I glad I cut cable TV off. I hate election years.

[Big Mac]

Oh, I forgot to emphasize this point: The same day Obama releases an ad taking cheap shots against Bain Capital, he takes money from Blackstone, a private equity firm just like Bain except Blackstone is much larger. They engage in the exact same business of buying trouble corporations to try to turn them around and turn a profit. Obama takes cheap shots at Bain because he has nothing to run on.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He vilifies the rich...

Since he has never done this, you don't have a point, you only have a straw man.

And it isn't Bain that is under attack, it is Romney's personal performance as a Bain exec that is under attack.

Saying G.W. Bush was (clearly) terrible as an oil man is completely different than saying the oil business is bad. Saying Steve Ballmer is a terrible software exec is completely different than saying the software business is bad. Saying Rebekah Brooks is a terrible news exec is completely different from saying the news industry is bad.

Romney typified the worst kind of executive. One can be a responsible exec or an unprincipled one, and Romney was definitely the later.

If Romney thinks he's qualified to be President because he is a successful business leader, he better be prepared to defend his record. He shouldn't bray about it if he can't bear to have it scrutinized.

BTW, Big Mac, congrats on falling into line behind your new lacklustre leader like a good little sheep. Too bad, so sad your choice stank like the the pathetic turd he was.

EDIT: It's ridiculous that Big Mac would even dare condemn Obama's stance on Bain when Big Mac's preferred primary candidate was Gingrich, the marshmallow who thought Bain-bashing could help him win the primary.

Perhaps this thread should be re-titled: Big Mac Incapable of Acknowledging Hypocrisy.

[besson3c]

I would rename this thread "unfocused and semi-incoherent emotional dumpings"

[Wiskedjak]

Please, Obama is a Communist, and therefore hates rich people and wants class-warfare. Even worse, he highlights his hypocrisy by choosing to run a Presidential campaign on more than a shoestring budget.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Actually right now we could really use a president who's capable of getting out the axe and cutting the fed down too size.

Not that either of them will.

[The Final Dakar]

I, for one, can't begin to explain how excited I am that election season has come to the PL.

[andi*pandi]

You shouldn't be able to invoke the hammer and sickle logo unless you personally have had to stand in a bread line.

[Chongo]

Here's one.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You shouldn't be able to invoke the hammer and sickle logo unless you personally have had to stand in a bread line.

If Obama gets re-elected that'll happen to all of us soon enough!

[BadKosh]

Seen those updates his admin has added to the past presidents bio's? What a classless jerk.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Seen those updates his admin has added to the past presidents bio's?

No. A link would be helpful.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He vilifies the rich while taking rich people's money to wage war on other rich people, merely to bolster his own political power.

You phrase this like there's some grand conspiracy.

I hate to break it to you Big, but there are insanely rich people who actually agree with his policies.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I hate to break it to you Big, but there are insanely rich people who actually agree with his policies.

Hypocrite socialists, feeding off the tit of capitalism.

[subego]

I think the answer is clear. These people have too much god damn freedom.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

I hate to break it to you Big, but there are insanely rich people who actually agree with his policies.

Trust me sub, you're not breaking anything to me. Of course there are insanely rich people who agree with Obama - THEY ALREADY MADE THEIR MONEY. So why not close the door to the next generation of rich people by supporting insane tax confiscation policies, so there are fewer people to compete against at that ultra high end? Oh, and don't get me started on that Grand Crook Buffett or the kappo Socialist Sorros.

[besson3c]

It was your choice to eat at the buffet, Biggy.

[The Final Dakar]

It's wonder there were ever rich people before Reagan came along. I forget, are Obama's proposed tax rates for top earners higher or lower than those of the Republican Jesus?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Trust me sub, you're not breaking anything to me. Of course there are insanely rich people who agree with Obama - THEY ALREADY MADE THEIR MONEY. So why not close the door to the next generation of rich people by supporting insane tax confiscation policies, so there are fewer people to compete against at that ultra high end? Oh, and don't get me started on that Grand Crook Buffet or the kappo Socialist Sorros.

Allow me to rephrase.

There are people who are just merely "rich rich", not "insanely rich" who support his policies. They know full well they could take a hit, and are fine with it.

In my experience, rich Democrats support Republican economic policy, but find their social policy so morally repugnant they pass up looking out for their own economic self-interest.

They don't even really support "socialist" policy, because they're aware of how the government ****s things up, but they feel Republicans are such *********s about it they don't want to be put in the same sentence as them.

Now, are the Republicans *********s about it? I'd say yes, but where I'd diverge from the average Democrat is they seem to believe the Republicans behave like that due to some moral failing, whereas I'd say it was due to being treated like they have a moral failing. Even if you're not a dick, if people keep calling you a dick, sooner or later you'll start acting like a dick.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, are the Republicans *********s about it? I'd say yes, but where I'd diverge from the average Democrat is they seem to believe the Republicans behave like that due to some moral failing, whereas I'd say it was due to being treated like they have a moral failing. Even if you're not a dick, if people keep calling you a dick, sooner or later you'll start acting like a dick.

I was under the impression republicans were dicks because that it what it takes to get shit done is the dog eat dog business world.

[subego]

Well, they're pretty obviously separable. Bill Gates would crush anyone here around a conference table, but seems genuinely decent outside the boardroom.

[OAW]

Big Mac makes an interesting observation despite his typical penchant for hyperbole.

Millionaires and billionaires are good for political donations, and they're doubly good for class warfare demagoguery. But we know Socialists will be hypocrites.

On the one hand one can argue Obama taking political donations from a hedge fund mogul while criticizing Romney's business record while running a hedge fund is "hypocritical". The business model of Bain Capital and Blackstone is the same as Big Mac noted. But on the other hand, I disagree with the contention that President Obama is "vilifying the rich" or engaging in "class warfare" or attacking "capitalism". LPK also made a good point about Big Mac's "hypocrisy" on this issue given his support for ole Newt who hammered Romney mercilessly about Bain. Apparently, it's only an issue when President Obama does the same thing.

My point here is that since Romney chooses to run on his experience as a businessman (and notably not on his record as Governor of Massachusetts) ... then the record he developed and the mindset he exhibited there is fair game. In an election cycle where the predominant issue is economic growth and job creation ... then if Romney's business record reflects a mindset of man who's sole objective is to legally maximize investor profits to the exclusion of all other considerations (i.e. American job creation/preservation) ... well then that's a relevant and legitimate criticism. There are those who believe (or perhaps pretend to) that what's good for the "Investor Class" is automatically good for the "Middle Class" and the "Working Class". But that simply is not true. And pointing this out is not engaging in "class warfare" ... it's making a simple observation. Because if your mindset or economic philosophy as a Hedge Fund manager is that it's better to to shut down a US plant and ship those jobs overseas in order to make a 15% return for you and your wealthy investors ... instead of keeping that US plant open and making a 12% return instead? Well then that's a criticism that Romney should be able to effectively counter if that's what he truly believes. It's not as if such criticism was unforeseen. And when Romney and his surrogates try to deflect attention away from his actual record and economic mindset with this "class warfare" foolishness it's quite telling IMO. Because if his actual record was one that reflected significant net US job creation ... then nothing shuts down criticism like results backed up by documented proof.

(Unless, of course, you are a regular Fox News viewer because then little things like facts don't matter.)

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I was under the impression republicans were dicks because that it what it takes to get shit done is the dog eat dog business world.

I also should point out this is an example of what I'm talking about. You're claiming their philosophy is rooted in amorality.

If you distill right wing economic theory, the rub against "socialism" isn't wanting a safety net, it's that government safety nets don't effectively solve the problem they set out to fix, or if they do, they do it only through egregious waste.

If you ascribe to this position, enabling government programs (at least the way the left wants to do it) is going to be immoral. It's basically theft. You're taking money for a service, and not providing a level of service commensurate with the amount you're charging. This isn't just a rich person looking out for their own kitty. They're rich, they can afford it. This is about the people who can't afford it. Those are the people you're hurting. Taking their money is what's genuinely immoral about it.

However, maintaining that position gets you labeled as "someone who doesn't give a **** about the poor", because anyone who actually cares about the poor must support government programs.

On the whole, I'd stll say Republicans are massively bigger *********s than Democrats, but on this one, the Democrats have set themselves up with an awfully convenient high-horse they just love to ride all up into everybody's face.


It's convenient enough I'd say most people don't even realize it. It's pretty standard procedure to think "that person doesn't think the way I do, and I'm right, therefore the only possible explanation is they must be an asshole".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You shouldn't be able to invoke the hammer and sickle logo unless you personally have had to stand in a bread line.

Exactly. Very few people who invoke Communism haven't the faintest clue what Communism *really* is.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Fewer things in life are more obvious: Rich Democrats LOOOVE crazy leftwing policies that lead to a bigger and more insanely bloated government, because a bigger insanely bloated government is the biggest friend anyone with lots of money could ever have.

Where else do you think in debt to their eyeballs political hacks get money from? All those poor people they pretend to love so much? The same ones they send riot cops out to break their heads the second they get too antsy? Yeah, right!

It's almost comical how big government types have succeeded with the hoax that they hate the assets that line their pockets and loooooove their liabilities.

Poor people, your role is this: VOTE in droves for scumbags who'll sell you a good line about how much they're going to make the rich people that shame you 'pay'. Otherwise, sit down, shut up and stay poor. Get too antsy, and we've got plenty of nightsticks, pepper spray and jail cells.

Rich people, your role is this: FUND the scumbags who are racking up mountains of debt larger than any fortune that's ever existed in human history. Line their pockets while in office, and grant them golden parachutes when they're out. Play along with the game, scratch the right backs and reap your rewards. Don't grow a mind of your own and don't get too independent-minded or you'll be investigated/regulated/demonized/etc.

Middle class, your role is this: Shut up. Pay up.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Fewer things in life are more obvious: Rich Democrats LOOOVE crazy leftwing policies that lead to a bigger and more insanely bloated government, because a bigger insanely bloated government is the biggest friend anyone with lots of money could ever have.

You say this as though government doesn't get bigger under conservatives as well ...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I also should point out this is an example of what I'm talking about. You're claiming their philosophy is rooted in amorality.

Actually, I was referring to those that think being nice wastes time and money. Not the ends justify the means.

---

I just realized this thread title is a response to the Romney thread.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You say this as though government doesn't get even bigger under conservatives as well ...

FTFY

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Actually, I was referring to those that think being nice wastes time and money. Not the ends justify the means.

Not sure I see much of a difference there.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You say this as though government doesn't get bigger under conservatives as well ...

We haven't had a government run by conservatives in any of our lifetimes.

At least the Republicans yap a good game about reducing the size of government, even if they don't actually achieve it. Republicans also don't typically run around pretending that bloating government helps the poor, they at least acknowledge that it does the exact opposite. They also don't constantly work for policies that purposefully create even more dependency and poverty because they're counting on the poor as vote cows.

Leave if to a lefty to excuse total left wing hypocrisy by pulling the old "b-but Republicans....!!!" line of uselessness. That does pretty much sum up Big Mac's thread title though.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Shouldn't the thread title be politicians not Obama?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Shouldn't the thread title be politicians not Obama?

It's extra worse when Obama does it because he's an Atheist Muslim Kenyan Socialist Communist.

lovin' election season!

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's extra worse when Obama does it because he's an Atheist Muslim Kenyan Socialist Communist.

Who eats puppies.

[hyteckit]

Pres. Obama is such a hypocrite.

Pres. Obama hates rich people, but then ask rich people for donations.
Pres. Obama hates White people, but then ask White people for donations.
Pres. Obama hates Men, but then ask Men for donations.
Pres. Obama hates Christians, but then ask Christians for donations.
Pres. Obama hates America, but then ask Americans for donations.


Man, Pres. Obama is such a hypocrite.

Pres. Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Socialist Racist Communist.

[hyteckit]

Oh. And Pres. Obama is Gay.

Pres. Obama hates heterosexual marriages, but then ask heterosexual couples for donations.

What a gay hypocrite.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's extra worse when Obama does it because he's an Atheist Muslim Kenyan Socialist Communist.

How pathetic is it that i'd be fine with that if he wasn't a career politician?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

We haven't had a government run by conservatives in any of our lifetimes.

Yes you did: the Clinton Administration. They balanced the budget, reformed the civil service, signed NAFTA, eliminated Glass-Steagall Act, and reformed welfare.

At least the Republicans yap a good game about reducing the size of government, even if they don't actually achieve it.

Yapping and bombing is about the only things Republicans do.

Republicans also don't typically run around pretending that bloating government helps the poor, they at least acknowledge that it does the exact opposite. They also don't constantly work for policies that purposefully create even more dependency and poverty because they're counting on the poor as vote cows.

Yes, because eliminating welfare, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and workplace safety regs helps to poor soooooo much.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

We haven't had a government run by conservatives in any of our lifetimes.

So, what you're wishing for is a Utopia that is about as likely to happen as that wished for by Communists.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes you did: the Clinton Administration. They balanced the budget, reformed the civil service, signed NAFTA, eliminated Glass-Steagall Act, and reformed welfare.

The Clinton Admin was moderate at best, and forced into it by voters and the Republican controlled congress. You wouldn't know it, but congress and the American people kept "We are the President" Hillary from squandering any gains made during the Clinton years on her own healthcare boondoggle that was mercifully aborted. As usual, you need a civics lesson. And history. You're obsessed with all things USA, but don't actually know much of substance about the place. I guess it's akin to how a peeping tom doesn't actually know anything about the people he spends so much time peeping in at.

Yes, because eliminating welfare, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and workplace safety regs helps to poor soooooo much.

This is funny right after you cited welfare reform as a Clinton positive, now here it's supposed to be a Republican negative.

Workplace safety regs? HAHA! This from the party that works tirelessly to allow in millions of illegal aliens to slave away in the worst possible of conditions, for miserable pay (or else lettuce will cost $80 a head!! WAHH!) while they turn a blind eye to all the businesses engaged in it, and persecute anyone that tries to stop it.

Democrats don't give a shit about workplace conditions. That's just another make-believe stance to be thrown against anyone that steps out of line. So long as you're towing the party line that illegal aliens are all the salt of the earth, you can exploit them like slaves in the worst possible conditions, pay them zip squat, and not only are you not a criminal, you're a hero on the cutting edge of the new civil rights movement!

Poor people are nothing to Democrat politicians but election day voter cows. Every other day of the year, they do best to keep out of sight, out of mind and knowing their role- if they know what's good for their craniums.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, what you're wishing for is a Utopia that is about as likely to happen as that wished for by Communists.

A government that controls itself is utopia and about as likely to happen as Communist utopia? Do you liberals suffer from some sort of Big Government Stockholm Syndrome or something? Seriously, that's such a suck-up attitude.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A government that controls itself is utopia and about as likely to happen as Communist utopia?

Apparently, since, according to you, we haven't seen a government that controls itself in any of our lifetimes. How exactly do you propose bringing this utopia about?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Well, it would start with all the Big Gov sycophants weaning themselves off the government **** they've been sucking for far too long. Can we start there and see where that leads?