Jump to content

Obama to Speak on Wall Street for $400,000


Hagar

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

Personall, I don't have a problem with it, but I suspect many Democrats will.  Their anti Wall Street rhetoric continuously bombards us on the media.

I do, only because Obama said he didn't run for public office to be helping out a bunch of "fat cat" bankers on Wall street. What a two face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2017 at 7:55 PM, baddog said:

I do, only because Obama said he didn't run for public office to be helping out a bunch of "fat cat" bankers on Wall street. What a two face.

Trump lies every day and you don't have a problem with that! President Obama has had one wife and two kids with that one wife. gets a government check for the rest of his life, healthcare that the republicans won't take away. And gets the big bucks to speak whenever and where ever he pleases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, new tobie said:

Trump lies every day and you don't have a problem with that! President Obama has had one wife and two kids with that one wife. gets a government check for the rest of his life, healthcare that the republicans won't take away. And gets the big bucks to speak whenever and where ever he pleases.

Like other living potus', he is nothing special!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

Trump lies every day and you don't have a problem with that! President Obama has had one wife and two kids with that one wife. gets a government check for the rest of his life, healthcare that the republicans won't take away. And gets the big bucks to speak whenever and where ever he pleases.

What you call a lie is debatable. If Trump said he would meet you @ 3:00 and he showed up @ 3:30 because of traffic, you would say he was a liar. Lots of things he promised can't happen overnight, but the unpatient left will hold him to everything he said, unlike any standard you held your boy to. But hey, as long as I know what I'm dealing with. 

What is your boy going to tell the Wall Street Gang? The epitome of capitalism is actually going to listen to what the worst president in the history of the United States has to say? I care nothing for the communist Bernie Sanders, but even he questioned why the communist Obama took the money. Of course you will sing the praises of his getting that kind of money, while you also backed him when he said he didn't run for office to help out a bunch of fat cats on wall street. Two faced is as two faced does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, baddog said:

What you call a lie is debatable. If Trump said he would meet you @ 3:00 and he showed up @ 3:30 because of traffic, you would say he was a liar. Lots of things he promised can't happen overnight, but the unpatient left will hold him to everything he said, unlike any standard you held your boy to. But hey, as long as I know what I'm dealing with. 

What is your boy going to tell the Wall Street Gang? The epitome of capitalism is actually going to listen to what the worst president in the history of the United States has to say? I care nothing for the communist Bernie Sanders, but even he questioned why the communist Obama took the money. Of course you will sing the praises of his getting that kind of money, while you also backed him when he said he didn't run for office to help out a bunch of fat cats on wall street. Two faced is as two faced does.

I've put videos up of trump lying his arse off and this is just the first 100 days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2017 at 4:09 PM, baddog said:

Tobie always bragging how Obama served two terms and is now set for life. Think again.

Obama speeches revive GOP bid to target his pension

This is the hidden content, please

Im sure he won't need food stamps. Him and his wife are well educated and many high profile companies would add either to their board are management team. President Obama will be his title for the rest of his and our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

Bush I and II got six figures for speeches.  Reagan made $1.08 million one year alone for speeches.  Bill Clinton made a lot of money giving speeches also.  Which leads me to believe President is being singled out because of the color  his skin.

Of course this has to played no matter the situation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

Bush I and II got six figures for speeches.  Reagan made $1.08 million one year alone for speeches.  Bill Clinton made a lot of money giving speeches also.  Which leads me to believe President is being singled out because of the color of his skin.

Actually, it's not the color of his skin, but the fact that he, and the Democratic Party have spent the last 8 years badmouthing the "fat cats on Wall Street".  But $400,000 for giving a two hour speech?  Wish they'd ask me lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Im sure he won't need food stamps. Him and his wife are well educated and many high profile companies would add either to their board are management team. President Obama will be his title for the rest of his and our lives.

.....and this separates him from the rest of the past presidents in what manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Actually, it's not the color of his skin, but the fact that he, and the Democratic Party have spent the last 8 years badmouthing the "fat cats on Wall Street".  But $400,000 for giving a two hour speech?  Wish they'd ask me lol.

Trump spent his whole campaign talking about 'draining the swamp' and reeling in Wall Street.  Then he turns around and appoints billion dollar wall street insiders on his cabinet.  You conveniently ignore all that and focus on dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...