SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) I think his post was meant more because O spent a lot of his term(s) bagging against the "fat cats" on Wall St and is now accepting their money to make a speech The man is (what would you call it) "unemployed". If people want to pay $1,000 a seat to hear him talk, then that's their problem. Should we want to stop a person from making $ because you don't like his policies or his Snake Oil pitch? Free Enterprise baby. Edited April 27, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) Love the liberals falling over themselves to be critical of Obama. As if there's something wrong with making speeches for money. Edited April 27, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 The man is (what would you call it) "unemployed". If people want to pay $1,000 a seat to hear him talk, then that's their problem. Should we want to stop a person from making $ because you don't like his policies or his Snake Oil pitch? Free Enterprise baby. Oh I have no problem with him getting paid, if that's what was offered/negotiated more power to him. I think it does demonstrate though that his talk about Wall St was just to appease his voter base and I think it is worth noting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Is this Wall Street Banker's thanks to him for not pressing any charges when you could have been tried for fraud that led to the '08 financial crisis? They could of just sent him a check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Is this Wall Street Banker's thanks to him for not pressing any charges when you could have been tried for fraud that led to the '08 financial crisis? They could of just sent him a check. They did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 What do people think may have been the economic fallout to punishing the banks and prosecuting their executives, on trumped up charges non-the-less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 What do people think may have been the economic fallout to punishing the banks and prosecuting their executives, on trumped up charges non-the-less? What trumped up charges? Can you be specific here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 [For those of you with gatorman on ignore, ridiculous verbiage removed courtesy of DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.10. You're welcome.] [This is an automated response.] This ridiculous verbiage is brought to you by... Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) What do people think may have been the economic fallout to punishing the banks and prosecuting their executives, on trumped up charges non-the-less? It would have been much, much worse. Which is part of the problem. Lots of bad apples in that sector operate above the law because they can, knowing the cost of holding them to it would sink the economy. We no longer live in a republic. We live in an oligarchy/plutocracy - this is a direct symptom (to me) of the dangers of moving to this form of government. Until we retake the republic and make it function as intended, this problem will persist and the working class will continue to get !@#$ed. Edited April 28, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts