<<
>>


Michelle Obama’s pitch: Share the wealth. Told to 300 rich people attending a fundraiser costing $300 to $10,000 who need to share their wealth to make sure her husband gets the deadbeat vote,

Contributed on February 25, 2012 by CO2Insanity, who has submitted 949 posts. Author's website.

{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }

Bonfire of the Absurdities February 25, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

Howcumizzit that “sharing the wealth” can only be accomplished by donating money to help reelect a lazy, empty suit and his spendthrift wife? How about just taking your 10 grand and handing it to the Red Cross or even some homeless guy? What about just flinging it out the window of your limosine as you drive thru town at lunch hour? If you really feel guilty and compelled to “share the wealth” then share it with somebody who might actually need it, not propping up a bunch of incompetent hacks who just want to take your money to feel their egos and hand out to their cronies.

Reply to this specific comment

likwidlizard February 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm

Controversial. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

This isn’t “Share the wealth”, the proper term would be “Ya’ll Gibsme to my hubund’s campaign chest.””I promise, you’ll all be rewarded later. Hell we’ll even give you billion dollar loans like we did Solyndra.” Gibsme Gibsme Gibsme. Obama, if you walk on water, why can’t you finance yourself? Same ole pimps but on a different street corner.

Reply to this specific comment

Elrond Hubbard February 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

How stupid can these wealthy Democrats be? Do they think that Obama’s “share the wealth” threats apply only to rich Republicans? We’re reapidly approaching a tipping point; when more than half the voting public is dependent on government entitlements they’ll vote for whoever promises them more “free stuff” and the definition of “rich” will be dumbed down to define anyone who makes more money than you.

Reply to this specific comment

StrinaM February 26, 2012 at 10:27 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

That is the whole progressive plan. Get more people dependent on government checks and keep getting reelected with guaranteed votes.

Reply to this specific comment

john February 26, 2012 at 10:58 am

Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Reply to this specific comment

Kip Hooker February 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

The popular vote was not applied to the election of the executive branch because (before ratification) states with smaller populations -although not necessarily smaller parcels of land- were worried that the states with more voters would invariably provide the nation with a President inclined to subjugate them in favor of the states representing his segment of the electorate. The Electoral College was then introduced as a balance on the system and a way on convincing the states to commit to the Constitution as it was a system of federalism in which power was granted to DC from the several states and not a method of developing their labor/property into merely a service of a Hamiltonian power for nationalist mercantilism.

For similar reasons the legislative branch was made bicameral with the lower house being chosen by voters (hence the reason why all taxation bills are supposed to originate there) with the Senate serving as a check for the individual states in that no one state was afforded greater representation than another and state legislatures choosing the senators.

The founders were all for popular sovereignty. But they were also well aware (no doubt from their study of antiquity and how Julius Caesar was able to turn a Republic in a dictatorship through the use of the mob) that democratic aspects of the system must be tempered by the firewall of a Republic. Otherwise 51 percent of the voters could choose all sorts of nasty things for the other 49. The most innocuous of which would be having to support them.

Reply to this specific comment

drb February 26, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

Why waste you’re time trying to educated someone too lazy to do his own homework?

Reply to this specific comment

john February 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm

Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Reply to this specific comment

drb February 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

no, insufficient.

Reply to this specific comment

Kip Hooker February 26, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

This is what you consider research. A five minute video on youtube. That’s like claiming you understand special relativity because you just watched back to the future.

Reply to this specific comment

drb February 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

See what I mean. He’s a waste of your time.

Reply to this specific comment

Kip Hooker February 26, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

Of course you’re correct. Sometimes I just like to keep the wits sharp. Although it is hard to develop a decent edge when your sharpening yourself against a water balloon.

Reply to this specific comment

john February 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Reply to this specific comment

john February 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Poorly Rated. Do you Like or Dislike? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Reply to this specific comment

Kip Hooker February 26, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

“That last sentence about the 51 to 49 rule. While that is true, with the electoral college, we can have less then 1 percent (the electoral delegates) making unjust decisions for the other 99% regardless of how all those votes were swayed.”

I’m certainly no stickler for all of the conventions of grammar being perfectly applied at all times but it is useful, upon occasion, to expect that responses employ coherent thought. Sometimes this method is almost as desirable as discussion with someone actually conversant in the topic. The Electoral College isn’t comprised of delegates imbued with powers to arbitrarily cast votes. They are a tier in representative democracy much like congress is when it comes time to creating budgets and drafting laws. Perhaps, in the future, you could greatly benefit from some time occupying a seat in your local library.

“An in all honesty, the electoral college is an outdated form of voting. It was needed long before mass communication as it was so slow to individually tally all the popular votes between states. So electoral delegates were sent to washington based on the popular behalf to vote.”

That is what coaches (pretending to be teachers) tell the kids right before they kick their feet up on the desk and return to the sports section. The system was established to protect the rights of individuals in sparsely populated states from the whims of those in highly populated ones.

“That is unnecessary in today’s world with instant internet communication and only leads to corruption.”

Supposing your simplistic understanding of the system was wholly correct (which it is not) then the impetus for abandoning the Electoral College would certainly not have begun with the instant communication ability the Internet allows for. Rather it should have been done with the mass adoption of the telegraph -or at least radio. After all the speed of light (within a given medium) is the speed of light (within that given medium). Adoption of the Internet does not reduce corruption. Virtual votes are far easier to tamper with than hard ones.

Reply to this specific comment

CaliforniaDave February 26, 2012 at 10:56 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

There won’t be any outrage from liberals until Hollywood is forced to pay this, too. Then watch for the “but I worked hard for my money, I earned it” stories.

Reply to this specific comment

StrinaM February 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

Again, why don’t they work it to where more than 50% of us are footing the bill for the other half??

Reply to this specific comment

Ruben February 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

…And here I’ve been laboring under the understanding that Michelle’s best pitch was a really wide curve ball. Her husband is certainly a screw ball and he throws a change-up from time to time just to please the transgender members of his electoral base. For sure, Obama’s leading the country over a cliff faster than a Nolan Ryan fast ball.

Reply to this specific comment

Notsosilent February 25, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

Okay you need to imagine a very large middle finger sticking up all by itself before I saw to Moooochelle…….Share this!!!!!!!

Reply to this specific comment

Progressive Hemrrhoid February 26, 2012 at 6:38 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

Now they have the Wookie preaching class warfare. It’s so unfair, you need to let us redistribute the wealth, that is after we skim off our cut that is.
It’s all nothing more then semi-legalized crime.

Reply to this specific comment

danybhoy February 26, 2012 at 6:54 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

I say keep her out there on the stump. This bubble butt pain in the ass is not well liked, despite how the MSM kisses her fat ass all the time. She does way more harm to Obama’s political future then the regime knows, & I want her out there looking down at the peasnts & talking at them. Telling us how we need to be, for our collective good. Michelle is very easy to hate, & she will help whoever the GOP runs win The White House.

Reply to this specific comment

Sidekick February 26, 2012 at 8:35 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

Yep, keep them all front and center. Does nothing but help the opposition,

Reply to this specific comment

Ray February 26, 2012 at 7:49 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

Their message is really about “Equal Results” rather than “Equal Opportunity.” But they disguise it as “Fairness.”

Reply to this specific comment

BARBBF February 26, 2012 at 7:49 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

MY VERY FOND MEMORIES OF MICHELLE???????

http://pophangover.com/2010/10/19/michelle-obamas-top-12-fashion-fails/

Reply to this specific comment

Black Sabbath February 26, 2012 at 8:45 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

This SO typifies Liberalism. The donors won’t do anything to help others personally. But they make themselves feel better by giving money to the government to do the job for them.

Reply to this specific comment

Notsosilent February 26, 2012 at 10:03 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

To take a page from the Troll we all know and loath…

Translation of Share the wealth….”Let them Eat Cake!”

Reply to this specific comment

tracycolorado February 26, 2012 at 11:00 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

Obama To Give Russia , Seven , Oil Rich , U.S. Alaskan Islands . Talks Have Been Secret , Behind Closed Doors Meetings . Possibly To Sway Russia on Their Iranian Stance / Hows That For Sharing The Wealth ???

http://digg.com/newsbar/PresidentObama/will_obama_give_russia_energy_rich_alaskan_islands

Reply to this specific comment

Leave a Comment

No registration is required to comment. However, Registering and/or Logging In before posting comments saves you time in future comments posting.

CAPTCHA Image
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.