The top 10 ways to identify the obama supporters


TeddyBallgame
+3
#1  Top Rated Post
- As election day approaches, here is how you can quickly identify the Obama supporters:

10/ They think it is awful to use mild torture techniques like waterboarding to secure vital intelligence information from terrorists but it is perfectly fine to kill alleged terrorists and whoever else happens to be in their wake with drones.

9/ They believe that the case of the Muslim army major who slaughtered 13 Americans at Fort Hood while screaming “Allah Akbar�� was not the first Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 but rather just another instance of violence in the workplace.

8/ They thought that the sudden and lethal attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by a small group using rocket launchers and other sophisticated weaponry was not the second terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 but rather a reaction by a mob of film critics to a trailer for a lousy movie nobody had even seen.

7/ They see nothing wrong with the administration failing to provide marines to guard US diplomatic posts in unstable and war torn Libya while providing marines to guard US diplomatic sites in sunny and friendly and peaceful Barbados.

6/ They have free government provided cell phones but nobody will take their calls.

5/ They consider that by far the weakest economic recovery of the nine since WWII at by far the highest cost in government spending is proof positive of the genius of Dear Leader Obama.

4/ They argue that it was wrong for Bush to take ten more minutes after he was informed of the second WTC attack to finish reading so as not to scare the youngsters in the classroom but it was right for Obama to react to the first murder of an American ambassador in over thirty years and the murder of three other Americans and the destruction of the US consulate in Benghazi by jetting off to Vegas for another fundraiser, making flippant remarks about having a tough day and bumps in the road, and fabricating a lie and cover up about the incident not being a terrorist strike.

3/ They believe Obama that it was wrong to raise taxes on anybody in 2010 because the recovery was so weak but that it is right to raise taxes now on the income group responsible for about 25% of all jobs in American even though the recovery now at 1.3% projected annual growth is even weaker than it was in 2010.

2/ They believe that this is the time and this is the leader to transform the US economy into the big government, big spending, high taxes, high debt, high dependency and low productivity model that has already brought much of Western Europe to its financial knees.

1/ They are so stupid they actually believe that a guy who never ran anything in his life except his mouth should be put - and kept - in charge of running the most complex and costly and consequential organization in the entire world.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2
#1 all have IQs in triple digits.
 
TenPenny
+3
#3
One thing about elections, people go way off the deep end expressing their hatred for their friends, neighbors, and family members.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

#1 all have IQs in triple digits.

Leaves tons of room for Teddy to school himself. Could be Mission Impossible though.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

One thing about elections, people go way off the deep end expressing their hatred for their friends, neighbors, and family members.

I am aware of several cases of FaceBook 'defriending' because the 'friend' was from the other camp. Not sure why you would base your friendship on policial religious views.
 
TenPenny
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

I am aware of several cases of FaceBook 'defriending' because the 'friend' was from the other camp. Not sure why you would base your friendship on policial religious views.

Me neither, but when you read the **** in the OP of this thread, you realize that some people love to insult their own family. 'cause sure as ****, some of his family members voted for that black guy.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
+2
#7
lol there it is. Republicans are raaaacists!!!!!
 
The Old Medic
Conservative
+1
#8
I personally know some very successful people that are supporting Mr. Obama. I do NOT agree with their decision to do so, but that is their right under our system of government.

I also do not think that everyone that support Mr. Obama is stupid. Misguided, perhaps, but not stupid.

As to Major Hassan, I just wish that somehow he would be accidentally released from his confinement, and dropped off on a road on Fort Hood. I suspect that there would be an accidental shooting within about 30 seconds, solving the entire problem.
 
TeddyBallgame
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by The Old MedicView Post

I personally know some very successful people that are supporting Mr. Obama. I do NOT agree with their decision to do so, but that is their right under our system of government.

I also do not think that everyone that support Mr. Obama is stupid. Misguided, perhaps, but not stupid.

As to Major Hassan, I just wish that somehow he would be accidentally released from his confinement, and dropped off on a road on Fort Hood. I suspect that there would be an accidental shooting within about 30 seconds, solving the entire problem.

- TOM ... I agree with you on all three points. My purpose in posting this top ten was that 1/ I enjoy coming up with humorous top ten lists, 2/ I enjoy showing the extraordinary gullibility and illogic and cognitive dissonance of liberals (a good liberal will believe absolutely anything - twice) and 3/ I thought that maybe one of the many liberals here would try to actually explain one or more of these rationally and factually untenable positions (alas, none of them did) and I could then tear them to shreds for sport.
 
Kreskin
#10
You don't have to be a liberal to want Obama to win. The existing obstructionists in the Rebublican party aren't conservatives. When they get back to what they were they'll have my full support. But right now it's anyone-but-them in my books.
 
gore0bsessed
#11

The Onion Voter39s Guide To Mitt Romney - YouTube

 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
lol Ted, you're a comical, predictable dude.
Support Romney and you support "trickle down theory" (which benefits the rich vastly more than anyone else), you support cutbacks to those who can't afford cutbacks, small- and medium-sized businesses ignored while large ones get corporate welfare and loads of other gov't benefits, etc. etc. all of which just makes the income gap between the rich and everyone else bigger and bigger.
Mind you, DUHbama is no answer to USA's problems either, but only a fool would think Romney is.
In the meantime, keep mudslinging, please. It's funny shyte.
 
TeddyBallgame
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

You don't have to be a liberal to want Obama to win. The existing obstructionists in the Rebublican party aren't conservatives. When they get back to what they were they'll have my full support. But right now it's anyone-but-them in my books.

- K ... If you're implying that Romney won't be able to handle the extremists in the Tea Party movement then I will argue that you are dead wrong. Mitt Romney is his own person, is wealthy enough to be beholden to nobody, is the most moderate GOP presidential candidate in decades and proved this to be the case during a successful and pragmatic and popular governorship of the US`s bluest state.

- To write off the GOP be cause they have a significant extremist element in their party is as unfair as writing off the Democrats because they have a significant element of far left, bat**** crazy, quasi-communist and rabidly racist loons in their party.

- A mature two party democracy by necessity has broad tent parties that encompass some extremists in their midst. What matters is how the leadership of the parties actually govern when given that chance. Mitt Romney is uniquely gifted by character, intelligence, financial independence and conciliatory skills and experience to handle the crazies in the GOP.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#14
lmao Yeah, Romney is Gawd's youngest son. Definitely worthy of sainthood. lol
 
DaSleeper
+1
#15

The Onion Voter39s Guide To Barack Obama - YouTube

 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TeddyBallgameView Post

- K ... If you're implying that Romney won't be able to handle the extremists in the Tea Party movement then I will argue that you are dead wrong. Mitt Romney is his own person, is wealthy enough to be beholden to nobody, is the most moderate GOP presidential candidate in decades and proved this to be the case during a successful and pragmatic and popular governorship of the US`s bluest state.

He is rich alright. Made all that money by predatory business moves that wound up putting thousands of people out of work and leaving shareholders with pennies on the dollar so he could make his millions. If you think this makes him a man of the people fit to govern a nation with the best interests of the citizens in mind I think you are quite severely deficient somehow and should seek professional medical attention promtly.

Quote:

- To write off the GOP be cause they have a significant extremist Far-right, bat**** crazy, gun-toting, "I don't care if you're half dead & starving get off my land before I shoot you", corporate welfare recipientelement in their party is as unfair as writing off the Democrats because they have a significant element of far left, bat**** crazy, quasi-communist and rabidly racist loons in their party.

FIFY!

Quote:

- A mature two party democracy by necessity has broad tent parties that encompass some extremists in their midst. What matters is how the leadership of the parties actually govern when given that chance. Mitt Romney is uniquely gifted by character, intelligence, financial independence and conciliatory skills and experience to handle the crazies in the GOP.

I don't think he could organize a beer bash in a brewery but then again neither could most of the idiots the bankers and corporations get put up for election. They are all front-men to give the electorate the illusion they have a say in the matter. Look at who the biggest donors to each campaign is and you will see who runs the country.

Quote:

The top four contributors to Romney, according to Open Secrets, are large banks that created the economic collapse, housing bubble and blew up and begged for a bailout—and got one. Thanks to us taxpayers they are now flush enough to be throwing millions and millions at the election, and mostly toward Romney. Romney’s top four contributors are Goldman Sachs, Bank Of America, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Romney’s top backers are the big banks that have absolutely destroyed the foundation of our economy and the middle class. Giving these four banks any more power and leverage than they already have, in my opinion, is about the most foolish thing we could do as a nation.

If this doesn't raise a red flag about who will run Washington if Mittens gets in.....
 
TeddyBallgame
+1
#17
- Nutcase Nick .... In 2008 the major contributors to Obama's campaign were large financial institutions including the big banks that Obama decreed were too big to fail and for which he reciprocated their campaign contributions by rescuing them with billions of taxpayer dollars, even more than the 90 billion he has blown on green energy losers run by his cronies.

- Today, even though your moron and management trainee buddy Barry bailed out the banks and even though the stiock market is doing well, the banks and other financial institutions are concerned about the stalled economy soon to be pushed over the cliff by Obama and are also tired of BO's BS that seeks to play the politics of envy and class warfare and thereby polarize and divide America at a time that it needs to be united.

- In other words, Nutcase Nick, the institutions that supported Obama in 2008 are on to him in 2012 and so they are now mostly supporting Romney.

- Only a nutcase or an utterly gullible moron would try to portray this is Romney being in league with the big banks anymore than the 2008 campaign contributions meant that Obama was automatically in league with the big banks.

- But keep on being a rabidly partisan and extreme left wing whackjob because it is good comic value for those of us who can spell IQ without needing to be spotted the Q.

Obama's Top Contributors for 2008 (as of 9/16)
Open Secrets ^| 9/16/2008

Posted on September-16-08 9:11:25 PM by markomalley


Please note: links do NOT work. Goldman Sachs $691,930University of California $611,207Citigroup Inc $448,599JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919Harvard University $435,769Google Inc $420,174UBS AG $404,750National Amusements Inc $389,140Microsoft Corp $377,235Lehman Brothers $370,524Sidley Austin LLP $350,302Moveon.org $347,463Skadden, Arps et al $340,264Time Warner $338,527Wilmerhale Llp $335,398Morgan Stanley $318,070Latham & Watkins $297,400Jones Day $289,476University of Chicago $278,885Stanford University $276,038
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by TeddyBallgameView Post

- Nutcase Nick .... In 2008 the major contributors to Obama's campaign were large financial institutions including the big banks that Obama decreed were too big to fail and for which he reciprocated their campaign contributions by rescuing them with billions of taxpayer dollars, even more than the 90 billion he has blown on green energy losers run by his cronies.
- Today, even though your moron and management trainee buddy Barry bailed out the banks and even though the stiock market is doing well, the banks and other financial institutions are concerned about the stalled economy soon to be pushed over the cliff by Obama and are also tired of BO's BS that seeks to play the politics of envy and class warfare and thereby polarize and divide America at a time that it needs to be united.
- In other words, Nutcase Nick, the institutions that supported Obama in 2008 are on to him in 2012 and so they are now mostly supporting Romney.
- Only a nutcase or an utterly gullible moron would try to portray this is Romney being in league with the big banks anymore than the 2008 campaign contributions meant that Obama was automatically in league with the big banks.
- But keep on being a rabidly partisan and extreme left wing whackjob because it is good comic value for those of us who can spell IQ without needing to be spotted the Q.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
And how much did these companies donate to the republican campaign?

Was it twice as much? 10 times as much?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TeddyBallgameView Post

- Nutcase Nick .... In 2008 the major contributors to Obama's campaign were large financial institutions including the big banks that Obama decreed were too big to fail and for which he reciprocated their campaign contributions by rescuing them with billions of taxpayer dollars, even more than the 90 billion he has blown on green energy losers run by his cronies.
- Today, even though your moron and management trainee buddy Barry bailed out the banks and even though the stiock market is doing well, the banks and other financial institutions are concerned about the stalled economy soon to be pushed over the cliff by Obama and are also tired of BO's BS that seeks to play the politics of envy and class warfare and thereby polarize and divide America at a time that it needs to be united.
- In other words, Nutcase Nick, the institutions that supported Obama in 2008 are on to him in 2012 and so they are now mostly supporting Romney.
- Only a nutcase or an utterly gullible moron would try to portray this is Romney being in league with the big banks anymore than the 2008 campaign contributions meant that Obama was automatically in league with the big banks.
- But keep on being a rabidly partisan and extreme left wing whackjob because it is good comic value for those of us who can spell IQ without needing to be spotted the Q.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
uhuh And who donated to the Rep party and how much did they donate? It's so easy to be a partisan hack like you, but it's not so easy to be fair, objective, and balanced. Get your mind off its lazy a$$ and try it sometime.
 
TeddyBallgame
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

And how much did these companies donate to the republican campaign?

Was it twice as much? 10 times as much?

- taxslave ... Even left wing lunatics like yourself should be bright enough and energetic enough to be able to google information but since this eems to be beyond you, I provide you with the comparative stats below. But surely even you are able to read and if you can you will see that these companies gave 2 to 4 times as much money to THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN as the the Republican campaign. Lordy, you are one clueless, hopelessly uninformed and ideologically driven loser.

Top campaign contributors: McCain and Obama


21 Sep


JOHN McCAIN (R)
Merrill Lynch $298,413Citigroup Inc $269,251Morgan Stanley $233,272Goldman Sachs $208,395JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975AT&T Inc $174,487Blank Rome LLP $150,426Credit Suisse Group $150,025Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787UBS AG $140,165PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120US Government $137,617Bank of America $129,475Wachovia Corp $122,846Lehman Brothers $117,500FedEx Corp $113,453Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250US Army $103,613Bear Stearns $99,300Pinnacle West Capital $97,700Source: OpenSecrets.org
TOP CONTRIBUTORS BY INDUSTRY
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Goldman Sachs $691,930University of California $611,207Citigroup Inc $448,599JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919Harvard University $435,769Google Inc $420,174UBS AG $404,750National Amusements Inc $389,140Microsoft Corp $377,235Lehman Brothers $370,524Sidley Austin LLP $350,302Moveon.org $347,463Skadden, Arps et al $340,264Time Warner $338,527Wilmerhale Llp $335,398Morgan Stanley $318,070Latham & Watkins $297,400Jones Day $289,476University of Chicago $278,885Stanford University $276,038Source: OpenSecrets.org
TOP CONTRIBUTORS BY INDUSTRY
These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#21
I assumed that the really big companies in the U.S. would donate hugely to
both political parties, so that regardless as to who happens to win, they'd
have their hooks into the Oval Office and wouldn't end up being ostracized
losers in business just 'cuz they sponsored the wrong dude who might hold
a grudge over not getting his cut.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+3
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TeddyBallgameView Post

- Nutcase Nick .... In 2008 the major contributors to Obama's campaign were large financial institutions including the big banks that Obama decreed were too big to fail and for which he reciprocated their campaign contributions by rescuing them with billions of taxpayer dollars, even more than the 90 billion he has blown on green energy losers run by his cronies.
- Today, even though your moron and management trainee buddy Barry bailed out the banks and even though the stiock market is doing well, the banks and other financial institutions are concerned about the stalled economy soon to be pushed over the cliff by Obama and are also tired of BO's BS that seeks to play the politics of envy and class warfare and thereby polarize and divide America at a time that it needs to be united.
- In other words, Nutcase Nick, the institutions that supported Obama in 2008 are on to him in 2012 and so they are now mostly supporting Romney.
- Only a nutcase or an utterly gullible moron would try to portray this is Romney being in league with the big banks anymore than the 2008 campaign contributions meant that Obama was automatically in league with the big banks.
- But keep on being a rabidly partisan and extreme left wing whackjob because it is good comic value for those of us who can spell IQ without needing to be spotted the Q.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Well there Teddy, Where do I start?

Lets first go with the lovely name calling....WTF? Is that your total skill in conversation? When the first thing you do is try to portray someone you may disagree with as a "nutcase" you lose all credibility from the start. You obviously lack any kind of mental aptitude because you go right into the holy chalice of name-calling and, apparently failed at that too as there are many worse thing to be called not that any matter from the like of you.

Ok, now on to a few other points besides the top of your little head....I don't know where you made the assumption that I support Obama but you missed by a country, not a country mile but the whole damn country. I support NO politicians in this day & age because NONE of them work for the citizens with the interest of the citizenry in mind. Not Romney, not Obama, not Harper etc, etc.
I also already knew that Obama's biggest donors last time were the same as Romney's this time, what you so carefully forgot to include was they were also the biggest donors to Mccain last time and also both candidates in Bush/Kerry. Hedging their bets and ensuring they had bought both candidates in order to continue the financial sector's control over Washington and it's policies.

Now for your biggest misconception, the banks and stock market are not doing well at all. If you remove the bailout money from the equation most of the big banks (especially the investment banks) are broke and should have filed for ch11 protection some time ago. While the market may be climbing a little it is sure to collapse even further very shortly. The mistake was made by injecting about $1trillion in taxpayer funded bailout money which has artificially re-inflated the bubble. Once this artificial stimulus is gone we will have an even bigger bubble than before 2008 which will burst with even bigger consequences. Check out some of the leading economists NOT tied to the govt and they all concur this will happen possibly as early as 2013.

The globe is in financial ruin (as the banksters planned) and the IMF and its cronies now own most of the countries on the planet. There will soon be a point where either the individual citizens will stand up and take control of our countries back and let these banks fail or we will all be permanently enslaved to them by our govt's.

Please note how I made my points here without calling you a 'nutcase' or a fruitcake or any other derogatory terms. Also, I suggest, you may want to actually find out the entire view of a person before you go off on a rant that simply makes you look ignorant and stupid.

- But keep on being a rabidly partisan and extreme right wing whackjob because it is good comic value for those of us who can spell IQ without needing to be spotted the Q....I'll spot you the I and the Q because you obviously need the help.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#23
Good post Nick....
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TeddyBallgameView Post

- taxslave ... Even left wing lunatics like yourself should be bright enough and energetic enough to be able to google information but since this eems to be beyond you, I provide you with the comparative stats below. But surely even you are able to read and if you can you will see that these companies gave 2 to 4 times as much money to THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN as the the Republican campaign. Lordy, you are one clueless, hopelessly uninformed and ideologically driven loser.
Top campaign contributors: McCain and Obama
21 Sep
JOHN McCAIN (R)
Merrill Lynch $298,413Citigroup Inc $269,251Morgan Stanley $233,272Goldman Sachs $208,395JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975AT&T Inc $174,487Blank Rome LLP $150,426Credit Suisse Group $150,025Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787UBS AG $140,165PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120US Government $137,617Bank of America $129,475Wachovia Corp $122,846Lehman Brothers $117,500FedEx Corp $113,453Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250US Army $103,613Bear Stearns $99,300Pinnacle West Capital $97,700Source: OpenSecrets.org

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Poor teddy can't answer a simple question without being a shill for the wingnuts.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by TeddyBallgameView Post

- taxslave ... Even left wing lunatics like yourself should be bright enough and energetic enough to be able to google information but since this eems to be beyond you, I provide you with the comparative stats below. But surely even you are able to read and if you can you will see that these companies gave 2 to 4 times as much money to THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN as the the Republican campaign. Lordy, you are one clueless, hopelessly uninformed and ideologically driven loser.
Top campaign contributors: McCain and Obama
21 Sep
JOHN McCAIN (R)
Merrill Lynch $298,413Citigroup Inc $269,251Morgan Stanley $233,272Goldman Sachs $208,395JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975AT&T Inc $174,487Blank Rome LLP $150,426Credit Suisse Group $150,025Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787UBS AG $140,165PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120US Government $137,617Bank of America $129,475Wachovia Corp $122,846Lehman Brothers $117,500FedEx Corp $113,453Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250US Army $103,613Bear Stearns $99,300Pinnacle West Capital $97,700Source: OpenSecrets.org

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I didn't know McCain was still running for prez. Coulda swore it was Romney and Obama.

Count the R's and the D's here; http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

Then there's this; http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php

You really give me a chuckle, Teddy. lol
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#26
So just while the subject is open can anyone please explain why the US Govt and the US Army/Navy/Armed forces are contributors to an election campaign. As the forces are branches of govt under control of the Commander in Chief (president) why would they be allowed to contribute and where does the money come from. Do they spend part of their allocated budget to make these donations in which case it would be perpetrating a fraud upon the citizens as that is not what we expect our tax dollars earmarked for the military to be spent on. Same goes for the Govt, are they spending tax dollars to promote a candidate and who makes the decision on which one? You could also throw the US Postal service in this group. Really just goes to show how corrupt the system is when govt agencies are allowed to contribute tax money to campaigns. What a Farce!!
 
Kreskin
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

So just while the subject is open can anyone please explain why the US Govt and the US Army/Navy/Armed forces are contributors to an election campaign. As the forces are branches of govt under control of the Commander in Chief (president) why would they be allowed to contribute and where does the money come from. Do they spend part of their allocated budget to make these donations in which case it would be perpetrating a fraud upon the citizens as that is not what we expect our tax dollars earmarked for the military to be spent on. Same goes for the Govt, are they spending tax dollars to promote a candidate and who makes the decision on which one? You could also throw the US Postal service in this group. Really just goes to show how corrupt the system is when govt agencies are allowed to contribute tax money to campaigns. What a Farce!!

They arbitrage short their tax credits to leverage from China and hedge against the US dollar.
 

Similar Threads

9
Attention- Supporters of Barrack Obama
by emily9a | Mar 12th, 2009
no new posts