Why to Vote Against Obama

    By PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 9:46am |

     

    Alan Grayson catalogs: “a socialist nightmare hellscape.”

    - Obama will “circumvent” the “checks and balances of the Constitution.”

    - Obama will “erode” our “fundamental rights.”
    - Obama will “fail[] to protect Americans abroad.”
    - “Gun control will be a priority.”
    - Obama will “exert[] control over our Nation’s judiciary.”
    - “Energy costs will skyrocket.” (Illustrated by . . . a rocket!)
    - EPA regulations will “choke energy production.”
    - “Obama will demand that tax rates go up.”

     

    As I assume this sells right-wing vague detail-free paranoia short, as an election eve effort to stanch the boredom and worry, please add your own concerns to the list.

    Mine is Obama & Bloomberg ban 7-11 slurpies nationally, requiring Arugula lettuce shakes at 6 am while dancing with Michelle to "Move Your Body".

    (I stole this from "1984 - Dance Revolution" - we love you Big Rapping Brother)

    Comments

    Newest reason given by Team Romney: Voting for President Obama means you don't love your country. Therefore, if you love your country, you have to vote against him.


    by MrSmith1 on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 12:36pm

    Appreciate your participating, but a bit more intensity please:

    - "a vote for Obama proves you despise and dishonor the very principles this country was founded on. Vote Romney, and show miscegenation and rural incest are incompatible values."


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 2:03pm

    Or as Paul Ryan says, "Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan told a group of Evangelical Christians Sunday that President Obama's plans threaten "Judeo-Christian values" — a dramatic charge aimed at the Republican base, and delivered during a conference call that did not appear on his public schedule.


    In his remarks to what organizers said were tens of thousands of members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ryan said that President Barack Obama's path for the next four years is a "dangerous" one.

    "[It is] a path that compromises those values — those Judeo-Christian values that made us a great nation in the first place," he said...

    Asked whether those Judeo-Christian values included them god forsaken 19th century revisionist Mormons what with their scam-artist founder, New Jerusalem-in-Kansas City 2nd coming and posthumous conversions, Ryan turned red and muttered, "but let's focus on Medicare, shall we?"

    Of course if they had put the New Jerusalem in Missouri to avoid Mideast wars, I'd say they were oddly prescient. But instead they seem to be setting up dual Jerusalems, as if one weren't too much by far...


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 2:18pm


    by DF on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 2:06pm

    Well played...


    by synchronicity on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 3:31pm

    Seconded.  Especially the part about dogs and cats living together.

    The biggest reason of all, however, is to avoid Venkman's fate, assured to happen to 53% of US citizens through a heretofore secret CIA plot, in the event of an Obama win, on the occasion of the next full moon:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2nYqyfDMnQ&feature=related

     

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 4:18pm

    Dogs and cats are already living together all across America. My dog used to lick the neighbor's cat's face every morning. I blame Bill Clinton or perhaps Carter.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 4:19pm

    Dogs and cats are already living together all across America.

    Yes.  This was arranged by Obama before he became President by the use of his Satanic powers.  Proving the point. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 4:24pm

     Obama will “circumvent” the “checks and balances of the Constitution.”      Already done to a greater extent than  GWB, though there are some yet that haven't been ignored, bypassed, or otherwise made dysfunctional, but the ratchet has been clicking and will likely continue to do so.

    - Obama will “erode” our “fundamental rights.”   See number one.

    - Obama will “fail[] to protect Americans abroad.”  Not much he can do in many places where they might need protecting.

    - “Gun control will be a priority.” Wrong.

    - Obama will “exert[] control over our Nation’s judiciary.”  He will attempt to appoint judges who will meet his own judicial philosophy. Each side hopes their choice for Pres. will do so but fear that the other side's choice will appoint judges that think like them. The court appointees are the main significant difference I can see.

    - “Energy costs will skyrocket.” (Illustrated by . . . a rocket!)  Most likely regardless who becomes the next Pres. Could be illustrated by "DUH".

    - EPA regulations will “choke energy production.”  I expect Obama will open all spigots.

    - “Obama will demand that tax rates go up.”  Republicans have been successfully selling that line or the converse regarding Republican candidates for many elections. They may be right. Lots of people who claim expertise say the situation demands tax increases and I think they are probably correct, just not on LULUDUDE. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 3:30pm

    So you're an almost anagram for dilaudid now, eh? Welcome, share....

    Anyway, this one's a half-serious diary - need that humor coming, too easy to be bitter even with my 5 guns and 4 religions, and what were a few cats that no longer seem to wake me up in the middle of the night.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 4:09pm

    Anagram, spamogram. spam-o-damn, whatever. Taking a side this time around means you can only be half serious at most and at least a bit funny. Ironically, the more serious the funnier. If Obama wins, and yeah, I hope he does too, I will get out my shot glass so that my glass can be better than half full, it could easily overflow.

     Now that I think about it, Tuesday night would be a good night to put that glass to its proper use and to see how long I can go without overflowing it. Forget "moderation". I aint having nothin' to do with no kind of conservatism bein' as what that word has come to mean nowadays.

     I wonder what percentage of Bourbon drinkers vote Democratic. I'm feeling a bit lonely here in Romney land. Anyone for an on-line drinking game?

     

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 4:43pm

    Don't get me wrong, I could easily do another post supporting Ian Welsh's/Matt Stoller's take on things.

    Here I was just trying to troll some juvenile humor rather than another serious disgruntlement thread, not that I'm dissing disgruntlement.

    As for that dilaudid, I'll take it as a bourbon mixer. Even with Canadian Ale for our eavesdropping Canuck friends. Yes, our cup overrunneth even if we drink it through the floor. I believe in moderation as long as you don't do it to excess.

    PS - Ian also had an interesting take on Jack Welch's job statement. Perhaps we can have this discussion in adult terms after the election, but I doubt it - more of the same, only more of it shall be the decree of the land.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 11/06/2012 - 1:21am

    Latest Comments