You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Why I am supporting Obama in 2012

Why I am supporting Obama in 2012


By marshill - Posted on 03 August 2011

I wanted to share with the group why I love obama and will support him in 2012:

1.  Unemployment at 9.2% (and rising).  I think its great that Obama will "laser focus' on jobs...after his fundraising of course (Go Obama!)

2.  Opulent Lifestyle:  Obama is living like a true elitist.  Tonight, in fact, he is having a birthday bash with millionaires and billionaires.  $10,000 per photo with the wonderful Obama, and $30k per plate dinners.  Elite guests. Luxury.  Opulence.  Wealth.   Obama.  I like that in a leader...especially when millions can't put food on the table.

3.  Golf.   I love that Obama has already golfed 76 rounds in 3 years.  Bush golfed 28 rounds in 8 years, and that was too much.  But for some reason, when Obama golfs, its different.  It just "feels right".  I like that in a leader.

4.  Torture.  I like that Obama doesn't torture terrorists, but just assasinates them without a trial.  I still think we need to arrest and imprison people from the Bush Era for waterboarding.  Waterboarding is evil, despicable, and vile. But invading a sovereign nation with an elite military force without permission and assasinating a terrorist leader without a trial...now THAT is good stuff!

5.  Starting another war.  Killing lots of people.  I like that Obama is a true warmonger.  125 tomohawk missles launched into Lybia without congressional approval, killing women and children...and then he calls it "non-hostilities"...I like that in nobel peace prize leader.  Go make war Obama!  Awesome!

6. Trillions in debt.  I love how Obama spends our money.  I think he deserves to eat Wagyu fillets for lunch.  Personally, I've never had the chance to eat a Wagyu fillet, but I imagine they are delicious.  Someone has to fund all the kickbacks, lobbyists, parties, and favors.  All that money Obama spends, and joblessness still goes up.  I like that about Obama.

7. Buddies with CEO's, billionaires, and elites.  Obama still commands over 60% of wall street donations.  CEOs of merryl lynch, GE, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, and a legion of billionaires and tycoon (all of the following are billionaire obama supporters):  Buffet, Kratzenberg, Paul Allen, Immelt, Spielberg, Oprah, Gates, Zuckerberg,  Paige, Brinn, Penny Pritzker, Lucas, Geffen, Ken Griffin, Soros,  Eli Broad, John Doerr,  Gerry Lenfest, John Morgridge,  Laura and John Arnold, Michael Bloomberg,Michele Chan, Barry Diller - the list goes on.  Its nice that the democrat machine is so well funded by billionaires.

8.  Obama will never tax the billionaires.   Raising income taxes will not touch a Zuckerberg.  These people don't get W2 forms.  Closing deductions will not touch them.  Google will still pay only 2.8% corporate tax this year (they do the double dutch).  Obama protects and coddles billionaires, and that is a wonderful thing.  Taxing the 250,000 income earners is great...because that will never touch an Obama supporting billionaire Kratzenberg.   If you want to get the billionaires, you need luxury tax, or tax wealth, but Obama will never do that.  We need to protect billionaires, so I support Obama's nipple suckling of billionaires (75% of Forbes US billionaires are Obama supporters).


I have many, many more reasons I love Obama, including the ZEN chanting that happens at his rallies ("O-BA-MA!  O-BA-MA!  gives me tingles everytime), and the vast amounts of litter and vandalism that occur whenever thousands of Obama fans gather at a rally, but for now these are some great reasons to support Obama in 2012!

 

 

OMG....Marshrill is back.  *sigh* 

Oh, the smell of sarcasm in the afternoon...

I don't want to confuse you, but let's try some FACTS....

1. Democrats (Obama) have several jobs bills in languishing in the House.  Boehner has refused to bring them to the floor.

2. The fundraiser is for the DNC, not Obama's campaign.

3. Who cares what either president does on his day off? I don't.  BUT...I do care about truth.  Bush claimed to have given up golf in 2003 in support of the troops in Iraq.  Yet, he was videoed golfing months after that.  I don't mind the golfing, but I despise the lies.

4. ROFL!!!  Every time I hear that right wing meme I laugh.  It's nothing but sour grapes.  Had Bush gotten Obama, I'm certain we would have been treated to another "mission accomplished" moment. 

5. Libya is not a war.  Period.

6. Yes, I agree that we are trillions in debt.  Did you know most of the debt is the result of Bush policies....Two wars that were kept "off the books", a huge give-away to big pharma with the Medicare prescription drug program, and massive tax cuts.  ALL of these were unfunded.  We're paying the price now....with interest.

7. That is sooooo 2008!! lol  The super wealthy donate to both parties...they want to be on the winning side.  The majority of the donations go to the DNC and RNC, not individual candidates of either party.

8.  Wrong.  Obama has proposed taxing wealth, such as raising the capital gains tax, and the wingers went nuts.  Please decide which side of the arguement you're on.
 

I suggest you do some fact checking before you quote the FReepers or WND.   It's really not my job to educate you.   Speaking of education, this piece is a bit more well written than your stuff from 2008.  Have you been studying, or copying and pasting?

Suzi

To democrat Suzi:

1.  Democrats had a 2 year supermajority.  And second, our constitution was designed so that elected leaders could work within opposition.  Do you want Obama the dictator?  If you make promises, and you require a dictatorship to keep them, then your promises are fallacies.  Like a good democrat, you blame everyone else, but the individual who made the promises.  You make a good George Bush.

2.  The DNC not Obama's campaign...oh he is so absolved!   Our humble Obama just wears a sackcloth and watches the opulence from the outside window...we know Obama himself doesn't ever lavish in it.  Obama is like a Ghandi.  Humble, and gracious.  The billionaires that surround him have no effect on him.  Obama is for the "little guy" (lol)

3.  I do.  And so do most other rational americans.  Especially when days off are a lot, and even more especially when you are the President of the United states and you have union hours as if you only work M-F with weekends off.   "Days off"...yea, ok.

4.  Of course you laugh, because two faced double minded bigotry is difficult to swallow, so a very typical psychological response when exposed with hypocrisy is to throw a fallacy such as a strawman (like you did) and react with false humor or anger and pretend its a non-issue.

5. Of course it's not a war.  Its just a lot of people getting killed, with lots of US missles launched into that country doing a lot of killing.  Lets not get into semantics about hostilities and war.   The truth is, its "okay" in your eyes.  I'm sure the mother who lost her children to Obama's missle would agree with you.  And Gitmo is open, even on Christmas Day, but I'm sure you have an excuse for that too.

6.  "Yes, I agree that we are trillions in debt. "  Well I guess that means that since you agree, we actually are.  Objective reality does need your permission to...well...exist as objective reality.  And there you go, committing the #1 democrat fallacy, assuming that anyone who calls Obama out on his failure, is by default a Bush supporter.  I hate bush.  Bush was a failure.   But it is logical fallacy to take one pile of excrement, and compare it with another pile of excrement, in the hopes that the first pile smells like strawberries.  I'm sorry Suzi, your tactic, while common with many democrats, is a violation of logic.  Philosophy > American Politics. 

7.  Both parties....except you leave out the historical fact, and present fact, that more of the super wealth went to Obama.  Nearly 3 out of every 4 billionaires on US Forbes are Obama supporters, including over 60% of wall street.  DNC and Obama = party of wealth, trial lawyers, corporate exects, bankers, and wall street.  I know facts are difficult to swallow, especially when (as a democrat) you've been sold the lie that the DNC is the party of the "little guy" when all you need to do is follow the money...the nearly 1 billion Obama pulled in, and see how vast his CEO support network actually is.  Remember, that taxing the "rich" (that DNC motto) always excludes billionaires, and they know this.   I'm all for taxing billionaires...its just that the DNC method leaves them completely out of the picture.  Democrats will never ever ever go after billionaires....it will never happen.  They need the money too much.

8.  Taxing capital gains will target every single middle class family in America, that idea is horrible.  Do you really want to tax capital gains and hit every 401k and every investment from the entire middle class?  Obama wont touch billionaires, he never will, because they are his bread and butter.   If you really want to tax the rich, you need to go after billionaires and hit them, without hitting so much as one penny of  the middle class.  Billionaires are high consumers...very high consumers...tax consumption...a luxry tax would work.  Or simply tax wealth.. there are.two ideas right there that are superior to the abysmal idea of raising capital gains tax and nailing the entire middle class in one fell swoop.  Democrats are the party of the filthy rich, they will never go after billionaires.  "Taxing rich people" means $250,000 a year.  Warren Buffet himself famously stated he pays less tax than his secretary.  Raising Warren Buffets taxes is stupid, a democrat idea (of course).  Every time I hear democrats talk about making the wealthy "pay a little more", I laugh because I know that their policies wouldn't touch billionaires in the slightest.  Sub millionaires?  Yes, severely.  Millionaires?   Yes....to some extent...but billionaires?  No, not at all.

 

It was a fun conversation my democrat friend Suzi.  Now you go out next year and cast your votes for "D" down the line like i know you will.  I wont reply again, I don't need to.  Logical fallacies do not deserve much of my attention, one reply was more than enough.   Have a lovely day all my little democrat friends.

 

 

1. Talking

2. To

3. Idiots

4. Is

5. A

6. Waste

7. Of

8. Time

Old-School Republican Suzi

With the return of Marshill and new posters like Robert Gordon, maybe RFO can bring back the "troll of the year award" for 2011.  

Blakey won in 2008, although it was not a clean win since I definitely would have won if I had not been unfairly disqualified. There were not enough competitors for 2009 and 2010 so no award was given.

But the ways things are going the last week or two, the competition could be tough in 2011 and 2012.   

 

Excellent suggestion, Brandon!!  LOL    We'll do it!!  ;-D

I think the trolls will be out in full force, and the competition will be very stiff.   You have an edge as the Troll of the Year must also be intelligent and/or lovable.  Just remember, you didn't become that way until you got your hand slapped. ;-D

Suzi

Wait -- when did Democrats have a "supermajority"? Did I miss it?

Oh, and with regards to "our Constitution was designed so that elected leaders could work within opposition"? Really? Care to quote chapter and verse on that?

It seems to me that the development of political factions/parties was one major blindspot on the part of the Founders, and the Constitution had to be amended several times in order to correct for that oversight.

The rest is just a lot of hot air, IMO.

Until Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts in January 2010, the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate.

Really? In the 111th Congress, there were 57 Dems, 41 Reps, and 2 Independents (presumably caucusing with the Dems). I guess at one point it was 58, 40, and 2, for a short time. Still not much of a supermajority -- filibuster proof I guess except for the fact that many of those 58 Democrats are also pretty conservative ("Blue Dogs"?) and don't always vote the party line.

How long did that supermajority last? How many Senators (probably mostly Kennedy who was ill at the time) abstained from voting? Still, not much of a supermajority IMO.

The "Super-majority" meme seems to be the talking point these days...I have no idea why.  

Here's a chart, month by month, of the 111th Congress.  Considering that during Kennedy's illness, his seat wasn't considered "vacant", and neither the Bluse Dogs nor Leiberman were sure things, it's a false meme.

Senate

Party standings in the Senate
(February 4, 2010 – June 28, 2010; and
July 16, 2010 – November 29, 2010.
From June 28 - July 16, there was one vacancy due to the death of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) until the appointment of Senator Carte Goodwin (D-WV))
2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats

 

 Party
(Shading indicates majority caucus)
Total 
    
DemocraticIndependentRepublicanVacant
End of previous congress48249991
 
Begin55241982
January 15, 200956991
January 20, 200955982
January 26, 200956991
April 30, 20095740
July 7, 2009581000
August 25, 200957991
September 9, 200939982
September 10, 200940991
September 25, 2009581000
February 4, 20105741
June 28, 201056991
July 16, 2010571000
November 29, 20105642
Final voting share58%42% 
 
Beginning of the next Congress512471000

 

From July 8, 2009 when Al Franken was sworn in to February 4, 2010, when Scott Brown was sworn in, the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate.  Ted Kennedy's absence is irrelevant because cloture is 3/5 of sitting Senators and 59 out of 99 is still 3/5.  

Granted, it was probably only for about 11 weeks when you count the amount of time Congress was in recess.  

Still, the Democrats missed their chance because it is unlikely they will get anywhere close to having 60 seats in the Senate for a LONG time.

 

 

Right, but that was only for the SENATE. Many (even most) bills and all revenue bills originate in the House. 

All that a bare "supermajority" in the Senate means is that the filibuster is no longer a useful tool for an obstructionist minority, assuming the majority vote as a block which is a pretty big leap of faith. Especially considering Democrats diversity of opinion and action compared to Republicans.

Thanks for that chart, Suzi. I was looking for something like that.

 

Like estimates of first quarter growth in GDP, the criticism of President Obama's leadership is likely to be revised downward over the next few months... but we must note, when he is so-called at his worst it's better than the Republicans at their best.

Of the recent and current crop of Republicans, you are spot on, Misty.

Suzi

New FEC filings show that American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-backed group that is pouring money into attack ads targeting Democrats around the country, continues to be funded virtually entirely by billionaires.

The latest fundraising numbers from the conservative American Crossroads show the super-rich continue to pony up

Marshill doesn't like any party that supports billionaires. So... I'm guessing he's no Republican, huh.

How come now when Suzi posts, it says "Submitted by" and then a blank?

It's some glitch in the new program Brandon.  At first, only John's name wasn't showing.  Now mine doesn't either.  That and other problems have been reported.  John hasn't answered my email, so he's probably busy pulling his hair out. ;-D

Suzi

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.