The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
If Obama Wins
 

optheta
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3592

Idk how a thread about Obama leads to Nazism.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24801

thunderbolt23 wrote:


Yes, in the event of a car crash, you will, just like you dutifully pay your taxes, hypocrite.


At least that is one thing I am never accused of.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7266

optheta wrote:
Idk how a thread about Obama leads to Nazism.


You just can't handle the truth...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7266

Seriously though:

CBSNEWS - Speaking Friday at what the administration called "The White House Forum on Women and the Economy," President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife - both Harvard Law School graduates - could not afford the "luxury" of having her stay home with the children.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

------------------

Michelle's job was a phoney "diversity" coordinator. Such an important job that no one was needed to replace her when she left it.

DNC advisor Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney:

"Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life," said Rosen gleefully.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," tweeted Ann is response, who has raised her children while battling Multiple Sclerosis and non-invasive breast cancer.

Rosen fired back at the 64-year-old grandmother "I am raising children, too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children."

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

SexMachine wrote:
Seriously though:

CBSNEWS - Speaking Friday at what the administration called "The White House Forum on Women and the Economy," President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife - both Harvard Law School graduates - could not afford the "luxury" of having her stay home with the children.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

------------------

Michelle's job was a phoney "diversity" coordinator. Such an important job that no one was needed to replace her when she left it.

DNC advisor Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney:

"Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life," said Rosen gleefully.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," tweeted Ann is response, who has raised her children while battling Multiple Sclerosis and non-invasive breast cancer.

Rosen fired back at the 64-year-old grandmother "I am raising children, too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children."



They have to? Yes, if they're unmarried, or they married someone who cannot provide well for them, or they are living beyond their means.

But if you are Ann Romney and you married a hard working successful business man like Mitt you don't have to work. I don't have anywhere near what Mitt Romney has, not even on the same planet wealth wise, but my wife has never had to work either. She raised our children as a full time job. And Rosen is living in la la liberal land if she doesn't think that raising kids--the right way-- isn't hard work and a full time job.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

optheta
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3592

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
Idk how a thread about Obama leads to Nazism.[/quote]

You just can't handle the truth...



Thats Genius. Why didn't we see the signs?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Hell-Billy
Level

Join date: Jan 2012
Posts: 701

If Obama wins things will be about the same as if Romney wins, both are big government shills.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

Hell-Billy wrote:
If Obama wins things will be about the same as if Romney wins, both are big government shills.




Romney cut taxes 17 times as Governor of Massachusetts.

He will do away with Obamacare as promised.

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.

All of this and more makes him a much better choice than Obama.

And if you'd pay attention and do more reading and less posting you might understand some of this.

knit wit

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Hell-Billy
Level

Join date: Jan 2012
Posts: 701

ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
If Obama wins things will be about the same as if Romney wins, both are big government shills.




Romney cut taxes 17 times as Governor of Massachusetts.

He will do away with Obamacare as promised.

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.

All of this and more makes him a much better choice than Obama.

And if you'd pay attention and do more reading and less posting you might understand some of this.

knit wit


Romney says a lot of things, but he normally does the opposite.

He implemented Romneycare in Mass. which is the basis for obamacare. so youll excuse me if i dont take his word for it.

He may have cut taxes but he implemented a $100 "gun tax" in mass.

Your not very smart are you. I find it hard to believe in this day and age that people beleieve what politicians say, especially since the advent of the internet where you have to be willfully ignorant(or a fucking idiot) to ignore the mountains of evidence of Romney flip flopping on issues.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

maverick88
Level

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 427

ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
If Obama wins things will be about the same as if Romney wins, both are big government shills.




Romney cut taxes 17 times as Governor of Massachusetts.

He will do away with Obamacare as promised.

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.

All of this and more makes him a much better choice than Obama.

And if you'd pay attention and do more reading and less posting you might understand some of this.

knit wit


OHHH, he promised? He said? Well then I am sold.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Gambit_Lost
Level 3

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3949

optheta wrote:
Idk how a thread about Obama leads to Nazism.



lol. Who could have predicted this?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Bambi
Level

Join date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1427

SexMachine wrote:
Seriously though:

CBSNEWS - Speaking Friday at what the administration called "The White House Forum on Women and the Economy," President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife - both Harvard Law School graduates - could not afford the "luxury" of having her stay home with the children.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

------------------

Michelle's job was a phoney "diversity" coordinator. Such an important job that no one was needed to replace her when she left it.

DNC advisor Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney:

"Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life," said Rosen gleefully.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," tweeted Ann is response, who has raised her children while battling Multiple Sclerosis and non-invasive breast cancer.

Rosen fired back at the 64-year-old grandmother "I am raising children, too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children."


How does 'handling community affairs' become a 'phony "diversity" co-ordinator'?

I would say that Michelle Obama and Ann Romney, from what I have seen of them both, are decent people.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9354

Zeb I find it hard to believe you of all people, who has been telling us for over 3 years now how all politicians are shills and/or hypocrites, will just believe Romney's campaign promises off the cuff.

I see no reason to believe a man that instituted socialized medicine would remove Obamacare. I see, at most, him trying to "tweak" or "adjust" Obamacare to be more "moderate republican". I don't care how many people you promise something. Every single presidential candidate has broken major campaign promises.

Further I think this is a good promise from his standpoint to make because I see the SCOTUS striking down the mandate and most, if not all, of the law before the election. That means that Romney can run on a "well I would have" and nobody can tell him he's lying. He won't have to pony up to get rid of it because it will already be gone. And if it's not struck down you have the backing of the SCOTUS and at least 1 conservative justice to say to the people who got you elected in essence "well he says it's ok, so I think we just need to adjust things here to make it 'better' ". Besides which he can still say to his supporters, "I'm not as bad as Obama would have been, aren't you glad you voted for me?"

To which I will say "no, absolutely not". But I had to anyway.

Finally, cutting taxes to Ronald Reagan levels? I don't buy that for a minute either--that's Romney invoking the ghost of Reagan to try to appeal to the people who don't like him by using Reagan's visage. Sure he may cut taxes a little, but I don't think he'll actually follow through on the Reagan levels because he knows it's just a campaign promise.

You've said it yourself countless times: politicians will say ANYTHING to get themselves elected. Why the devil should I believe a word he says?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

maverick88 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
If Obama wins things will be about the same as if Romney wins, both are big government shills.




Romney cut taxes 17 times as Governor of Massachusetts.

He will do away with Obamacare as promised.

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.

All of this and more makes him a much better choice than Obama.

And if you'd pay attention and do more reading and less posting you might understand some of this.

knit wit


OHHH, he promised? He said? Well then I am sold.



I don't know your political background and I don't care enough to read your posts (nothing personal but there is a time limit to this stuff). But if you are for smaller government and lower taxes Romney is far superior to Obama.

Furthermore, if you knew anything about how the game of politics is played (and I'm not saying you don't) then you'd know that Mitt Romney needs the conservatives to not only get elected, but to get reelected. Now you can call Romney plenty of things, (he is a politician after all and do any of us really know these people?) but you cannot call him stupid. If he says he'll end Obamacare for example, you can be assured that he'll do it. Not because he is fundamentally opposed to national health care, but because he fundamentally opposed to being a one term President! And he needs the conservative base to get reelected.

Bet on it!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

Bambi wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
Seriously though:

CBSNEWS - Speaking Friday at what the administration called "The White House Forum on Women and the Economy," President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife - both Harvard Law School graduates - could not afford the "luxury" of having her stay home with the children.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

------------------

Michelle's job was a phoney "diversity" coordinator. Such an important job that no one was needed to replace her when she left it.

DNC advisor Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney:

"Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life," said Rosen gleefully.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," tweeted Ann is response, who has raised her children while battling Multiple Sclerosis and non-invasive breast cancer.

Rosen fired back at the 64-year-old grandmother "I am raising children, too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children."


How does 'handling community affairs' become a 'phony "diversity" co-ordinator'?

I would say that Michelle Obama and Ann Romney, from what I have seen of them both, are decent people.



I don't know, I didn't like the comment that Michelle Obama made after her husbands victory

"this is the first time that I have been proud to be an American."

That may not make her indecent, but it doesn't exactly thrill me that the first lady is not all that fond of the USA.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

Aragorn wrote:
Zeb I find it hard to believe you of all people, who has been telling us for over 3 years now how all politicians are shills and/or hypocrites, will just believe Romney's campaign promises off the cuff.

I see no reason to believe a man that instituted socialized medicine would remove Obamacare. I see, at most, him trying to "tweak" or "adjust" Obamacare to be more "moderate republican". I don't care how many people you promise something. Every single presidential candidate has broken major campaign promises.

Further I think this is a good promise from his standpoint to make because I see the SCOTUS striking down the mandate and most, if not all, of the law before the election. That means that Romney can run on a "well I would have" and nobody can tell him he's lying. He won't have to pony up to get rid of it because it will already be gone. And if it's not struck down you have the backing of the SCOTUS and at least 1 conservative justice to say to the people who got you elected in essence "well he says it's ok, so I think we just need to adjust things here to make it 'better' ". Besides which he can still say to his supporters, "I'm not as bad as Obama would have been, aren't you glad you voted for me?"

To which I will say "no, absolutely not". But I had to anyway.

Finally, cutting taxes to Ronald Reagan levels? I don't buy that for a minute either--that's Romney invoking the ghost of Reagan to try to appeal to the people who don't like him by using Reagan's visage. Sure he may cut taxes a little, but I don't think he'll actually follow through on the Reagan levels because he knows it's just a campaign promise.

You've said it yourself countless times: politicians will say ANYTHING to get themselves elected. Why the devil should I believe a word he says?



Please read my previous post to another poster

Politicians cannot be trusted most of the time, I said it and I maintain it.

But....

Romney is a smart guy and he will not work against his own interests!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

lanchefan1
Level 3

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1193

ZEB wrote:

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.



So what spending is he planning on cutting? (not trolling, just asking)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Bambi
Level

Join date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1427

ZEB wrote:
Bambi wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
Seriously though:

CBSNEWS - Speaking Friday at what the administration called "The White House Forum on Women and the Economy," President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife - both Harvard Law School graduates - could not afford the "luxury" of having her stay home with the children.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

------------------

Michelle's job was a phoney "diversity" coordinator. Such an important job that no one was needed to replace her when she left it.

DNC advisor Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney:

"Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life," said Rosen gleefully.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," tweeted Ann is response, who has raised her children while battling Multiple Sclerosis and non-invasive breast cancer.

Rosen fired back at the 64-year-old grandmother "I am raising children, too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children."


How does 'handling community affairs' become a 'phony "diversity" co-ordinator'?

I would say that Michelle Obama and Ann Romney, from what I have seen of them both, are decent people.



I don't know, I didn't like the comment that Michelle Obama made after her husbands victory

"this is the first time that I have been proud to be an American."

That may not make her indecent, but it doesn't exactly thrill me that the first lady is not all that fond of the USA.



"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I??m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

I feel there's a key difference there. But I can see your point.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.



So what spending is he planning on cutting? (not trolling, just asking)


I've read about him wanting to eliminate entire government agencies. But don't expect specifics because Romney is too good of a politician for that. When you attack something some people love you for it and others hate you. What should be done is attack concepts and that is what he's doing.

http://www.conservativerefocus...

Honestly the more I see of Romney the more I like him.

If he can beat Obama I think you will be surprised at how effective he is as chief executive.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Hell-Billy
Level

Join date: Jan 2012
Posts: 701

ZEB wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.



So what spending is he planning on cutting? (not trolling, just asking)


I've read about him wanting to eliminate entire government agencies. But don't expect specifics because Romney is too good of a politician for that. When you attack something some people love you for it and others hate you. What should be done is attack concepts and that is what he's doing.

http://www.conservativerefocus...

Honestly the more I see of Romney the more I like him.

If he can beat Obama I think you will be surprised at how effective he is as chief executive.


He doesn't give specifics because he wont do it. It's simple Downes theory politicians present a partisan image to in primaries but converge in the center for general elections.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

Bambi wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Bambi wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
Seriously though:

CBSNEWS - Speaking Friday at what the administration called "The White House Forum on Women and the Economy," President Barack Obama said that after his two daughters were born, he and his wife - both Harvard Law School graduates - could not afford the "luxury" of having her stay home with the children.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

------------------

Michelle's job was a phoney "diversity" coordinator. Such an important job that no one was needed to replace her when she left it.

DNC advisor Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney:

"Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life," said Rosen gleefully.

"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," tweeted Ann is response, who has raised her children while battling Multiple Sclerosis and non-invasive breast cancer.

Rosen fired back at the 64-year-old grandmother "I am raising children, too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children."


How does 'handling community affairs' become a 'phony "diversity" co-ordinator'?

I would say that Michelle Obama and Ann Romney, from what I have seen of them both, are decent people.



I don't know, I didn't like the comment that Michelle Obama made after her husbands victory

"this is the first time that I have been proud to be an American."

That may not make her indecent, but it doesn't exactly thrill me that the first lady is not all that fond of the USA.



"For the first time in my adult lifetime, Iâ??m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

I feel there's a key difference there. But I can see your point.



Understand that I do not dislike the first lady for her comment. But I do think that she, like her husband, were influenced from 20 years of listening to Rev Wright gin up his black base by making ludicrous claims against white people. Wright is a racist of the highest order. That the Obama's were there for 20 years does not speak very well of either of them. Can you imagine the outrage if Mitt Romney attended a racist church for 20 years? He would have been tossed out of the primary on his head by a media crying racism and they would have been right. But Obama got a pass by the left wing media and in the process the nation was cheated.

Okay I went on and on sorry. But it is what I do best!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

Hell-Billy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.



So what spending is he planning on cutting? (not trolling, just asking)


I've read about him wanting to eliminate entire government agencies. But don't expect specifics because Romney is too good of a politician for that. When you attack something some people love you for it and others hate you. What should be done is attack concepts and that is what he's doing.

http://www.conservativerefocus...

Honestly the more I see of Romney the more I like him.

If he can beat Obama I think you will be surprised at how effective he is as chief executive.


He doesn't give specifics because he wont do it. It's simple Downes theory politicians present a partisan image to in primaries but converge in the center for general elections.



LOL...you better get back to the "drink more protein shakes" thread. I'm sure they miss your wit and wisdom.

LOL

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Posts: 258

optheta wrote:
Idk how a thread about Obama leads to Nazism.


It doesn't if your sane but if your a right wing paranoid angry white male it does. Of course there is no validity to it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Hell-Billy
Level

Join date: Jan 2012
Posts: 701

ZEB wrote:
Hell-Billy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.



So what spending is he planning on cutting? (not trolling, just asking)


I've read about him wanting to eliminate entire government agencies. But don't expect specifics because Romney is too good of a politician for that. When you attack something some people love you for it and others hate you. What should be done is attack concepts and that is what he's doing.

http://www.conservativerefocus...

Honestly the more I see of Romney the more I like him.

If he can beat Obama I think you will be surprised at how effective he is as chief executive.


He doesn't give specifics because he wont do it. It's simple Downes theory politicians present a partisan image to in primaries but converge in the center for general elections.



LOL...you better get back to the "drink more protein shakes" thread. I'm sure they miss your wit and wisdom.

LOL


Well, now that's a productive response, i guess i cant expect much for someone who cant comprehend basic electoral theory.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

lanchefan1
Level 3

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1193

ZEB wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And he also said he would lower taxes to the level Ronald Reagan did in the 80's.



So what spending is he planning on cutting? (not trolling, just asking)


I've read about him wanting to eliminate entire government agencies. But don't expect specifics because Romney is too good of a politician for that. When you attack something some people love you for it and others hate you. What should be done is attack concepts and that is what he's doing.

http://www.conservativerefocus...

Honestly the more I see of Romney the more I like him.

If he can beat Obama I think you will be surprised at how effective he is as chief executive.



I'll be interested to see more, you can't tighten the purse strings without cutting expenditures.

One thing I would love to see is for pay increase in both the House and the Senate be a vote of the people (then they can explain why somebody on disability or a retiree doesn't get a raise but they do). But alas that will NEVER happen.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report