If You're Voting FOR Obama....

[Robert Snow]

I've been supportive of the Democratic Party for much of my life. My father, who was a machinist like myself, was a democrat during the days of the Great Depression. Things these days, however, do not represent anything like it was decades ago. I have voted for both democrats and republicans during my 60 years on earth. I voted for Jimmy Carter, but also voted for Reagan in 1980. In 2008 I voted for McCain. Even though McCain lost and Obama won the election, I hoped he would turn things around for this country, and that Obama would do some of the things he said he would do. This has not happened, in fact things have gotten much worse.

Living in Houston, Texas, this recession has not had much of an economic effect on things here like the rest of the country. When looking at other things like the bypassing of the Constitution and attempting to act more like a dictator rather than a president, things that affect all Americans, like infringing on our right to bear arms, this administration has turned into something that causes me much concern.

I don't trust Romney, he seems to say only what his audience wants to hear. He has changed positions on most of his stances from years past. I fear he might turn out to be disappoint if elected. However, even with this apprehension over what he might do as president, there has to be a change in Washington DC. I plan to vote for Romney and hope I don't regret it. I feel that even if things don't go as they should, it has to be an improvement over what we face if Obama wins again.

PS: Even if Obama wins the presidency, if the republicans can hold the House and even win the Senate, it will give some hope for the future.

 

[OldRegular]

Primarily because the Republicans seem to be at war against just about everyone except rich folk and Romney has bought into these stances.

That is an utterly asinine point of view. Are you really so dense as to believe that all the people who vote Republican are super rich? They may be stupid but they are not super rich.

It is a fact that there are more rich democrats in the Congress than rich Republicans.

It is a fact that Obama collected more money from the super rich on Wall Street in 2008 than McCain.

It is a fact that Obama collects all the money from the super rich hollywood crowd.

It is a fact that Obama's evolution to a pro homo pervert gained him significant financial advantage.

It is not that I think Obama is so wonderful, just that at this point in time I believe he is interested in helping the middle class and poor. I do not believe Romney gives a whit about either. That is pretty much it in a nutshell.

Now, Now CTB. Do you really think you are fooling anyone on this forum with the above disclaimer? There is no more ardent supporter of Obama on this forum!

Are you really so obtuse to believe that Obama and the democrat party give a tinkers dam about the poor. They simply want power and people like you are willing to give it to them.

I really wish one party or the other and I do not care which would run someone I could get excited about.

Now, Now CTB. Do you really think that anyone on this forum is simple enough to believe you are not super enthusiastic about Obama? You were in 2008 and still are!

 

[Havensdad]

That is easy. The Republicans made a decision to oppose everything, absolutely everything that Obama proposed. They have faithfully followed that decision at the expense of the poor and middle class.

They agreed that night: oppose everything in completely unity. Show, Draper writes, "united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies."


[/size]

Since Obama's policies are downright wicked, and would destroy the country, I am GLAD that they are opposing them!

 

[Don]

So far, only two Obama supporters. And I have to say, I'm not sure I've seen any good reasons why.

 

[OldRegular]

That is easy. The Republicans made a decision to oppose everything, absolutely everything that Obama proposed.

Thank God they did otherwise the country would be in the same shape as Greece. Well actually worse since there is no one to bail out this country. It is obvious to all except those blinded by the Marxist mantra of Obama that his desire is to bankrupt the country with the hope that a Socialist state will arise from the ashes.

What is so pathetic about your slavish subservience to Obama is that you profess to be a Christian. Yet Obama has long been a rabid supporter of the murder of the unborn and the just born. He has recently evolved to the position of supporting the concept of marriage to sexual perverts. Both these perversions are in direct opposition to the Word of God yet you are willing to support this abomination. That is borderline sacrilege if not blasphemy.

They have faithfully followed that decision at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Pathetic CTB. Who do you think is going to suffer if the country goes bankrupt? Not the rich, it is the poor and the middle class. At the present time the poor are living off the middle class. The rich folks make out regardless of who is in the White House.

CTB, I wonder sometimes if you are simply a troll. Surely a Christian cannot espouse the ideas you routinely post. Surely a Christian cannot justify supporting a party whose platform and leaders are rabid abortionists.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Thank God they did otherwise the country would be in the same shape as Greece. Well actually worse since there is no one to bail out this country. It is obvious to all except those blinded by the Marxist mantra of Obama that his desire is to bankrupt the country with the hope that a Socialist state will arise from the ashes.

OldR, they even opposed ideas that they had advocated for years. No one believes any party should approve of everything a president proposes. But to decide before a person takes office to oppose everything is irresponsible.

The road to bankruptcy began under Bush. He had a budget surplus when he took office. He destroyed that and then by beginning two unjust wars had to borrow and borrow and borrow. I remember at one time we were borrowing a billion a week from China.

Through his misplaced practices Bush is responsible for the economic meltdown. The first bailout was during the last of the Bush administration.

What is so pathetic about your slavish subservience to Obama is that you profess to be a Christian. Yet Obama has long been a rabid supporter of the murder of the unborn and the just born. He has recently evolved to the position of supporting the concept of marriage to sexual perverts. Both these perversions are in direct opposition to the Word of God yet you are willing to support this abomination. That is borderline sacrilege if not blasphemy.

I have never said I approve of everything he proposes or has done.

Pathetic CTB. Who do you think is going to suffer if the country goes bankrupt? Not the rich, it is the poor and the middle class. At the present time the poor are living off the middle class. The rich folks make out regardless of who is in the White House.

CTB, I wonder sometimes if you are simply a troll. Surely a Christian cannot espouse the ideas you routinely post. Surely a Christian cannot justify supporting a party whose platform and leaders are rabid abortionists.

There is never any political party where your or I accept all their positions. I gave my answer, to me Obama has the economic interests of the middle class and poor more at heart than Romney. That is why I will vote for him unless Romney changes his stated beliefs and convinces me he has abandoned his interest in helping the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

I believe it is a board violation to say someone who is not a Christian who is a Christian. I answered the op question. There are many troll answers on the thread, yours included. As you would never vote for Obama you and others should not have replied on the thread as anything you say would not be an on topic response.

 

[OldRegular]

OldR, they even opposed ideas that they had advocated for years. No one believes any party should approve of everything a president proposes. But to decide before a person takes office to oppose everything is irresponsible.

Such as???

The road to bankruptcy began under Bush. He had a budget surplus when he took office. He destroyed that and then by beginning two unjust wars had to borrow and borrow and borrow. I remember at one time we were borrowing a billion a week from China.

He inherited a recession from Clinton but he did not spend the next 4 years blaming Clinton.

He inherited 9/11 from Clinton's preference for young women over protecting the country from terrorists!

Only one unjust war CTB. How much are we borrowing from China now? The budget deficit is about 3 times as much under your buddy Obama as it was under Bush!

Through his misplaced practices Bush is responsible for the economic meltdown. The first bailout was during the last of the Bush administration.

Actually the housing meltdown is the result of policies instituted under Clinton and the defense by Barney Franks of Fannie and Freddie. I will concede that the Republicans caved to Barney!

I have never said I approve of everything he proposes or has done.

One issue alone should be sufficient to keep a Christian from voting for Obama much less being an ardent proponent. That issue is the slaughter of the unborn. Then of course there is his evolving to an advocate for pro pervert marriage!

There is never any political party where your or I accept all their positions. I gave my answer, to me Obama has the economic interests of the middle class and poor more at heart than Romney. That is why I will vote for him unless Romney changes his stated beliefs and convinces me he has abandoned his interest in helping the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

So you care nothing about the Obama/democrat program of slaughtering the unborn? You care nothing about their pushing the perversion of homosexual unions on the country? You should be ashamed of yourself!!

As for Obama and democrats caring for the poor that is ridiculous. Obama cares about nothing other than power. democrat politicians care about nothing other than power.

I believe it is a board violation to say someone who is not a Christian who is a Christian. I answered the op question. There are many troll answers on the thread, yours included. As you would never vote for Obama you and others should not have replied on the thread as anything you say would not be an on topic response.

I posted the following CTB. I am not so stupid as to question the salvation of a board member but I can express amazement that a Christian would support one who is a rabid advocate of the slaughter of the unborn.

Originally posted by OldRegular
CTB, I wonder sometimes if you are simply a troll. Surely a Christian cannot espouse the ideas you routinely post. Surely a Christian cannot justify supporting a party whose platform and leaders are rabid abortionists.

 

[Zaac]

That is easy. The Republicans made a decision to oppose everything, absolutely everything that Obama proposed. They have faithfully followed that decision at the expense of the poor and middle class.

And I ask again, after his first two years where he had full control of both Houses of Congress, why weren't the poor and middle class better off? It's not like the Repubs got control of the House and started undoing legislation.

What did Obama do for the poor and middle class in his first two years?

They agreed that night: oppose everything in completely unity. Show, Draper writes, "united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies."

After having Obamacare and every other piece of liberal legislation shoved down their throats the first couple of years, I don't blame them. He shouldn't be allowed to do anything but disappear.

But as I said before, it's evident, contrary to what liberals think, that Obama is not trying to help the poor and the middle class.

 

[OldRegular]

There is never any political party where your or I accept all their positions. I gave my answer, to me Obama has the economic interests of the middle class and poor more at heart than Romney. That is why I will vote for him unless Romney changes his stated beliefs and convinces me he has abandoned his interest in helping the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the 8 long years of the Roosevelt Depression, discovered that there was gold, sorry, votes to be had from the poor. The very wealthy Roosevelt, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, was able to convince the poor and the blacks that he felt their pain, he knew what it was like to be poor. The democrats have been spewing their nonsense about caring for the poor ever since. The democrats are very good at lying to the gullible, far better than Republicans.

The following Scripture is just for you CTB. I am afraid, given your ardent love affair with Obama and the democrats, that you are not familiar with it. Otherwise????

Proverbs 6:16-18
16. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

CTB, What could be more innocent than the unborn? Yet you support those who are happy to shed innocent blood as long as it buys votes.

 

[mandym]

CTB, What could be more innocent than the unborn? Yet you support those who are happy to shed innocent blood as long as it buys votes.

He is more worried about people's money.

 

[InTheLight]

There's no conspiracy theory there. The federal reserve is made up of privately owned banks and we started social security to pay back this private bank.

LOL!

What about the Bilderbergers? Please elaborate. I need some humor this morning.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Since Obama's policies are downright wicked, and would destroy the country, I am GLAD that they are opposing them!

Were they evil when Republicans advocated these same ideas?

The Republicans have made the individual mandate the element most likely to undo the President’s health-care law. The irony is that the Democrats adopted it in the first place because they thought that it would help them secure conservative support. It had, after all, been at the heart of Republican health-care reforms for two decades.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein#ixzz20nt78KUT

It's been surprisingly easy of late to chronicle the many instances in which congressional Republicans have announced their opposition to ideas they support. From a deficit commission to PAYGO, cap-and-trade to a financial industry bailout, civilian trials for terrorist suspects to stimulus aid for their districts, it's become routine for Republicans to embrace and reject the same proposals, almost at the same time.

On an individual mandate as part of health care reform, Karen Tumulty noted this morning.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022428.php

Rachel Maddow had a great report about how the GOP opposes THEIR OWN IDEAS , once President Obama supports them. Obama, always interested in bipartisanship, has never shied away from supporting plans offered by Republicans if he thinks they're good ideas. But an interesting thing happens when he does: Suddenly, Republicans OPPOSE TO THE DEATH the very ideas they came up with, only because Obama likes them.
http://lordrag.blogspot.com/2011/08/obama-derangement-syndrome-gop-opposes.html

Why do Republicans oppose their own healthcare plan, once Obama started implementing it?
The healthcare individual mandate was a conservative idea first thought up by the Heritage Foundation, which was then championed by Newt Gingrich, and actually implementing in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney, who also supported a mandate at the federal level.

Now that President Obama was successful in implementing a Republican idea, now Republicans oppose it. Why is this?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120630095350AACtonG

But Hatch’s opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2010/02/16/health-care-republicans-oppose-their-own-idea/#ixzz20nuQ3Gog

 

[OldRegular]

Were they evil when Republicans advocated these same ideas?

They evolved!:laugh: They got Smarter!:laugh:

Seriously CTB quoting Rachel Maddow is brilliant!:laugh::thumbsup:

 

[John Toppass]

Obama is the least evil and a Christian.

What is Christian about advocating the murder of innocent children in their mother's womb?

What is Christian about advocating same s-x relations?

I have not seen any indication that this president has a positive relationship with anyone who is a Christian.

 

[OldRegular]

Obama is the least evil and a Christian.

Based on what I have observed in the two men I would say Romney fits the description of a follower of Jesus Christ far better than Obama.

As an Illinois state senator Obama tried to defeat a bill that would protect aborted babies born alive. Such a person certainly cannot be a Christian. One of his first acts as president was lifting restrictions on the use of foreign aid to promote the slaughter of the unborn. And you and Crabtownboy praise Obama! Very sad!

 

[Zaac]

Based on what I have observed in the two men I would say Romney fits the description of a follower of Jesus Christ far better than Obama.

Romney follows a false god. How on earth does that more closely fit the description of someone following Christ?

 

[AresMan]

Romney's tax reform plan is to cut everyone's tax rates by 20%. Doesn't that help the middle class?

Ah, but you see, you cannot "help" the middle class and poor without "hurting" the upper class.

It is never about the actual standard of living of the poor and middle class, it is about how they fare compared to the upper class.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Romney's tax reform plan is to cut everyone's tax rates by 20%. Doesn't that help the middle class?

Probably not in the long run.

Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Will Help Rich People And Hurt Most Americans

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-tax-plan-2012-7?op=1#ixzz20ofY4OIX

 

[saturneptune]

Based on what I have observed in the two men I would say Romney fits the description of a follower of Jesus Christ far better than Obama.

As an Illinois state senator Obama tried to defeat a bill that would protect aborted babies born alive. Such a person certainly cannot be a Christian. One of his first acts as president was lifting restrictions on the use of foreign aid to promote the slaughter of the unborn. And you and Crabtownboy praise Obama! Very sad!

I agree with your conclusion, and am going to vote for Romney. What I think of Romney is different than your idea, however. I believe neither man (Obama or Romney) to be a follower of Jesus Christ. I think Mormonism is a greater threat to the Christian church than the Catholic. My basis for voting for Romney is that I believe he will do less damage than Obama. I do believe it is possible that Romney has changed his ideas on gay rights and abortion, but not so sure. The thing is, there is no chance that Obama will change his mind.

We are talking about what if senarios, and this one might illustrate our differences, because in this case, we come to the same conslusion. If Jimmy Carter was running against Mitt Romney, I would vote for Carter. Just as a side note, I voted for Reagan over Carter.

I said four years ago McCain was the bottom of the barrel and ate my words, because now we have Romney and I am voting for him. I hesitate to say this is the last time, but will, because I do not see how the standards could get any lower.

 

[InTheLight]

Probably not in the long run.

That article is extremely biased and ignores its own diagnosis.


...the problem with the economy is not that the richest Americans don't have enough money--they do--but instead that the vast American middle class, which contributes most of the spending in the economy, is broke and deeply indebted, putting even more money in the hands of the richest Americans won't help the economy. It will just put more money in the hands of the richest Americans.

Again, the problem in the economy is that the corporations' end customers--the hundreds of millions of people in America's middle class--are broke.

So, if America's middle class is broke, isn't a tax cut EXACTLY what the government should be doing for them? Instead the article plays up the class warfare argument, in essence saying, "we shouldn't give the middle class a tax cut because then the upper class will get one too." And nowhere in the article is there one shred of commentary on how Romney's tax plan will "hurt most Americans."