I'm not a paid Internet shill and I don't work for Goldman Sachs.
Did Goldman Sachs Declare War on Obama and Try to Defeat Him?
- Thread starter FrankRep
- Start date
-
- Tags
- goldman sachs
I'm not a paid Internet shill and I don't work for Goldman Sachs.
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
Prominence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31
Why would you create a thread about Goldman wanting to defeat Obama when they are on the same team? Wait because you gave a link to mainstream media? Just look at reality I don't care nor draw my conclusions based on ABC news and neither should you. It is obvious Goldman wants Obama despite any quotes from their CEO or what mainstream news says. You know that saying actions speak louder than words.
I posted it because calling Obama a "Goldman Sachs Corporatist" is a falsehood. In fact, all the big banks abandoned Obama because he's bad for business.
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
if they wanted to tank obama, all they need to do is stop the printing presses.(or creation of credit).
the immediate down turn would have ended obama.
yet, they kept the economy propped up artificially, so people would still vote for him.
Prominence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31
Wrong, calling Obama a "Goldman Sachs Corporatist" is truth. It is truth that may not be supported in mainstream media from which you seek support, but is supported by common sense and anyone aware of what is happening around them.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
It is well known that Corporate pup masters and neecon lobbies dip their toes in both blue cheese and ranch dressing.
[h=1]Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor[/h]From Robert Yoon, CNN Political Research Director
April 20, 2010 5:50 p.m. EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS
Decorated Marine and Pastor Rev Wright also confirmed that he was plant for bankers and lobbies.
[h=1]Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor[/h]From Robert Yoon, CNN Political Research Director
April 20, 2010 5:50 p.m. EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS
Decorated Marine and Pastor Rev Wright also confirmed that he was plant for bankers and lobbies.
Nice quote right off the bat. Yes, we know Goldman Sachs is not happy with Obama. It's not paying off and they cut off funding the next election cycle.
Washington (CNN) -- For Goldman Sachs, a large financial investment in President Obama does not appear to be paying off.
Pastor Rev Wright is not a credible source. He "confirmed" nothing.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
Lover's quarrels don't mean he is not their plant even if plant investment is not "paying off" exactly as CNN expected.
Rev Wright is a more credible source than CNN btw; from freedom in Iraq to Palestine to Madoff wall street scams, various examples of CNN deceptions/omissions and spreading lies.
- [h=3]Obama's Best Friend At Goldman Sachs - Huffington Post[/h]www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-friend-goldman-sachs_n_2083476.h...
Nov 6, 2012 - FORTUNE
- [h=3]Obama's odd bromance with Goldman Sachs' bankster CEO Lloyd ...[/h]americablog.com/.../whats-up-with-obamas-bromance-with-lloyd-blankf...
Feb 5, 2013 - Why does the President continue to treat Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein like he's royalty?
- [h=3]Obama's best friend at Goldman Sachs - The Term Sheet: Fortune's ...[/h]finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/06/jan-hatzius-goldman/
by Mina Kimes - in 547 Google+ circles
Nov 6, 2012 - The President may have lost many of his supporters at Goldman, but the bank's chief economist, Jan Hatzius, has advocated his economic ...
I read the articles and they're mainly filled with fluff and speculation.
The only thing of value was: Goldman's chief economist, Jan Hatzius, still supports Obama.
Okay.
Henry Rogue
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,677
Can a politician be both a communist and a fascist? I guess if he talks one and walks the other.
Thomas Sowell might have the right idea.
Socialist or Fascist
Thomas Sowell
June 12, 2012
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
That would not be unusual at all.
Is this a serious subject for discussion?
Mistake you seem to be making here is that you see plant as a serious ideologue whereas he is an opportunist cameleaon and political prostitute/puppet and follows agenda of his pup masters which are likely to be highest bidders.
In this case you'll have more meaningful discussion about ideology of his masters than the puppet. Many real socialists would probaly see it as an insult if you put them in same camp as the plant.
Similar threads
