No bigger hypocrite than Obama

[Amberchgo]

If Republicans win control of both the House and Senate, “the interests of billionaires will come before the needs of the middle class,” President Barack Obama said at a $32,500-a-plate fundraiser at the $16 million Greenwich, Connecticut, estate of a billionaire named (I’m not making this up) Rich Richman.

You can’t top that remark for hypocrisy or the setting for irony. It isn’t the middle class who write $32,500 checks. Those who do expect something in return. They’ve been getting it.

...

The top group of fundraisers for Mr. Obama raised $457,834 for his 2008 campaign – and were approved for federal grants and loans of $11.4 billion, according to the Government Accountability Institute. Selling access to the federal treasury has been a great way for Democrats to raise campaign funds.

Since 1989, according to an analysis by Gateway Pundit, big donors have provided $416 million more in direct contributions to Democrats than Republicans.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/26/obamas_raw_deal_124440.html#ixzz3HHpdRoAY
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter




The guy is sure good at trashing the 1%'ers. And the MSM follows right along.

 

[cowslinger64]

Hey now, don't sell yourself short... you're a huge hypocrite. If you actually did more than whine here, you'd be able to one day aspire to equal him. Don't give up hope!


Nice non-biased site you got your c&p from.

 

[Que]

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute any of facts regarding rich, Democratic donors.

What possible difference does it make where the facts are cut and pasted from?

 

[KingOrfeo]

What possible difference does it make where the facts are cut and pasted from?

It always makes a difference. The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger. Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy logically but not rhetorically.

 

[pete]

It always makes a difference. The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.

...says the guy who c&P's from salon.com.

 

[KingOrfeo]

...says the guy who c&P's from salon.com.

A messenger with a reliable and credible name.

 

[PoppingTom]

What possible difference does it make where the facts are cut and pasted from?

Is this a serious question?

Or an "ignorance ist strength" statement?

 

[Que]

Is this a serious question?

Or an "ignorance is strength" statement?

If a fact or statistic is valid, but irrelevant, explain why. If a fact or statement is untrue, point that out.

If a fact or statement is both true and relevant, what difference does it make where it came from?

He did neither. If he had said, "Those numbers seem off to me, and I distrust your source for them," It would be weak without something to refute the numbers but a reasonable argument.

A messenger with a reliable history of supporting my biases and therefore a credible name to me.

Fixed your post for accuracy.

 

[pete]

A messenger with a reliable and credible name.

credbe to wbom?

paul krugman seems credible to some, but he's still considered by many to be nothing more than a bootlicking stooge

 

[RobDownSouth]

credbe to wbom?

paul krugman seems credible to some, but he's still considered by many to be nothing more than a bootlicking stooge

Paul Krugman holds a Nobel prize in Economics, which to most folks confers some degree of authority, outside of the "circle the wagons" epistemic closure cretins.

 

[Adre]

So it would seem that Democrats are more adept at making money and are more willing to put that money where their mouths are. I don't see a big problem here. Free market, capitalism, freedom of speech. Sounds almost like Republican values.

 

[Amberchgo]

It always makes a difference. The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger. Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy logically but not rhetorically.

Please explain your issue with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

 

[Que]

credbe to wbom?

paul krugman seems credible to some, but he's still considered by many to be nothing more than a bootlicking stooge

As I said in the Ferguson thread the other day, opinions are facts that disagree with a liberal's opinions and "facts" are opinions that agree.

To a lesser extent the same filter applies to conservatives. Difference being, liberals have no problem at all simply ignoring an inconvenient truth as was offered in this thread.

Just as they have no problem labeling their speculations, "inconvenient truth."

Crony capitalism fuels politics. Democrats demonstrably benefit more from the practice. Democrats also spend the most time decrying the influence that money has in politics.

Rich people and corporations buying influence from Democrats is acceptable to Democrats, because their support of Democrats demonstrates that they have their intentions in the right place so any influence they wield for the dollar spent is, of course, honorable.

The idea that because Paul Krugman holds a Nobel prize in Economics and it's bogus conveyance of some degree of authority is just as laughable as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize conveying a correct impression about his great work to prevent violence and death in the world.

For what it is worth, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is riding the coattail of the name and not part of Alfred Nobel's legacy nor is the prize awarded in the same fashion. It tends to favor apologists for strong banking systems.

 

[pete]

Paul Krugman holds a Nobel prize in Economics, which to most folks confers some degree of authority, outside of the "circle the wagons" epistemic closure cretins.

and there's many nobel prize winning economists who disagree with him, completely.

so obviously the nobel award isn't the gold standard you'd like it to be.

 

[PoppingTom]

If a fact or statistic is valid, but irrelevant, explain why. If a fact or statement is untrue, point that out.

If a fact or statement is both true and relevant, what difference does it make where it came from?

One more "if": if you can't prove it, but you know the source is unreliable and/or writes in a hounding way, you can point that out.

There ARE people out there spreading lies. You have the right to disbelieve.

 

[PoppingTom]

and there's many nobel prize winning economists who disagree with him, completely.

Names ? Sources?

 

[Ishmael]

As I said in the Ferguson thread the other day, opinions are facts that disagree with a liberal's opinions and "facts" are opinions that agree.

To a lesser extent the same filter applies to conservatives. Difference being, liberals have no problem at all simply ignoring an inconvenient truth as was offered in this thread.

Just as they have no problem labeling their speculations, "inconvenient truth."

Crony capitalism fuels politics. Democrats demonstrably benefit more from the practice. Democrats also spend the most time decrying the influence that money has in politics.

Rich people and corporations buying influence from Democrats is acceptable to Democrats, because their support of Democrats demonstrates that they have their intentions in the right place so any influence they wield for the dollar spent is, of course, honorable.

The idea that because Paul Krugman holds a Nobel prize in Economics and it's bogus conveyance of some degree of authority is just as laughable as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize conveying a correct impression about his great work to prevent violence and death in the world.

For what it is worth, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is riding the coattail of the name and not part of Alfred Nobel's legacy nor is the prize awarded in the same fashion. It tends to favor apologists for strong banking systems.

That is a corollary to the philosophy of, "The ends justify the means." It's the philosophy of petty tyrants.

Ishmael

 

[Adre]

Soros and the Kochs are doing the same thing for the same reason. Those who think one is more honorable than the other are partisan fools.

 

[pete]

Names ? Sources?

i'm limited by my phone here, but look up my posts - i linked to a paper in which 500 economists (including 3 NP winners) opposed raising the minimum wage, which krugman supports vehemently.


google's your friend

 

[Que]

I didn't bother to look to see what what highly impeachable site c-sling was whining about, since my point was that the facts laid out are just that, facts. The obvious conclusion is that Democrats whining about money in politics do so hypocritically.

I just noticed that he is whining about RealClearPolitics while Oreo is holding up Slate as some bastian of neutrality.

What a laugh. I don;t blame C-sling because he ony reads politics here on the General Board and has no idea what any of the sites are. Oreo should know better. RealClearPolitics skews right in what it chooses to report, not so much in outright editorializing. It's focus is polling. It's bias is apt to be shown when it trumpets a poll that liberals would like to see buried and when it minimizes one that tends to embarras conservatives.

More than anything it is a news aggregator like Drudge. You have to look at the article posted to see what the original source is. They, admittedly, are going to grab articles that display their version of verity from whatever the source.

Here is where it is hillarious:

Page 1 of RCP today:

Fear and Loathing in America - Michael Goodwin, New York Post
Cuomo, Christie Defend Ebola Quarantine - Santora & Fitzsimmons, NYT
President Obama's Raw Deal - Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
What October's Attacks Tell Us About the Future - John Dickerson, Slate
Happy Deficit Day, America - Harrigan & Davies, RealClearPolitics
Why Liberals Were Suckers for Carter & Obama - Thomas Frank, Salon
Illinois & the Dangers of Democratic Rule - Steve Chapman, Chicago Trib
Clinton and Warren, Together at Last - Joe Klein, Time
Fresh Out of Ideas, Hillary Tries Rerun - Howie Carr, Boston Globe
Refusing to Marry Gay Couples Isn't Religious Freedom - Sally Kohn, DB
Feminism's New Low: Potty-Mouthed Princesses - H. Wilhelm, Federalist

Several leftie sources there...INCLUDING Oreo's Beloved Salon!

None of which changes the criticism I made initially to C-sling's usual drivel:

Address the charge that Democrats take MOAR money from rich people than Republicans then whine about money in politics.

 

[Que]

Soros and the Kochs are doing the same thing for the same reason. Those who think one is more honorable than the other are partisan fools.

A blind squirrel and all that.

Agree 100%

 

[PoppingTom]

i'm limited by my phone here, but look up my posts - i linked to a paper in which 500 economists (including 3 NP winners) opposed raising the minimum wage, which krugman supports vehemently.

Oh, I totally believe that.

But I think he's right.

It's no big deal to find 500 diehard neoliberals, even NP winners, opposing that. But in the end, it's just an opinion, and neoliberalism did some great damage in the world.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Hey now, don't sell yourself short... you're a huge hypocrite. If you actually did more than whine here, you'd be able to one day aspire to equal him. Don't give up hope!


Nice non-biased site you got your c&p from.

dude, take off the panties.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Names ? Sources?

why is it you union socialist assHats are so freaking lazy?

is it the socialism? is it the union part?

 

[RobDownSouth]

and there's many nobel prize winning economists who disagree with him, completely.

so obviously the nobel award isn't the gold standard you'd like it to be.

Oh, I'm sure there probably are a few Nobel prize winners who believe that raising the minimum wage would cause the downfall of Western Civilization. Strangely, I can't think of any, but I'm sure you could.

The Nobel Prize doesn't confer infallibility upon the winner.

Nonetheless, Krugman is regarded as the fifth most influential economist in America today by his peers, which speaks to his reputation. (Don't worry, your side is amply represented by the number three choice Milton Friedman). Your blithe dismissal of the man (using the craven weasel words "some folks say") speaks volumes as to your political bias.