If Obama Wins

ZEB · April 13, 2012, 11:44pm

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]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.”[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, IÃ¢??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.
[/quote]

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!

ZEB · April 13, 2012, 11:46pm

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

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

[/quote]

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

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.com/blog5.php/2012/03/26/romney-eliminate-government-and-shutter-cabinet-agencies-books-into-balance

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

LOL…you better get back to the “drink more protein shakes” thread. I’m sure they miss your wit and wisdom.

LOL

silee · April 13, 2012, 11:52pm

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

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.

Hell_Billy · April 13, 2012, 11:52pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

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

[/quote]

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

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.com/blog5.php/2012/03/26/romney-eliminate-government-and-shutter-cabinet-agencies-books-into-balance

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

LOL…you better get back to the “drink more protein shakes” thread. I’m sure they miss your wit and wisdom.

LOL[/quote]

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

lanchefan1 · April 14, 2012, 12:06am

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

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

[/quote]

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

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.com/blog5.php/2012/03/26/romney-eliminate-government-and-shutter-cabinet-agencies-books-into-balance

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.[/quote]

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.

Hell_Billy · April 14, 2012, 12:20am

Seems like Romney’s a fan of Keynes, on the off chance Romeny wins the general election i woudnt expect much change.

ZEB · April 14, 2012, 12:32am

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

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

[/quote]

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

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.com/blog5.php/2012/03/26/romney-eliminate-government-and-shutter-cabinet-agencies-books-into-balance

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

LOL…you better get back to the “drink more protein shakes” thread. I’m sure they miss your wit and wisdom.

LOL[/quote]

Well, now that’s a productive response, i guess i cant expect much for someone who cant comprehend basic electoral theory.[/quote]

Ha ha you’ve not said one thing in any of the threads that you follow me around on that even begins to make sense.

My gosh T Nation does attract the little morons. Odd though with few exceptions they usually stay in the threads that revolve around things that they can actually understand.

Dumbo here has wondered off the farm.

Maybe someone will come to get you soon.

LOL ha ha

ZEB · April 14, 2012, 12:34am

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

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

[/quote]

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

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.com/blog5.php/2012/03/26/romney-eliminate-government-and-shutter-cabinet-agencies-books-into-balance

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Well, we fundamentally agree on this point. But there is coming a time in our history and in fact I think it is around the corner where we will not have a choice. We either cut spending or we begin a fast slide from prominence.

SexMachine · April 14, 2012, 3:01am

[quote]Bambi wrote:

How does ‘handling community affairs’ become a ‘phony “diversity” co-ordinator’?

[/quote]

‘Before ascending her throne, the First Lady worked for the University of Chicago Hospitals. She wasn’t a nurse or doctor, or even a janitor. She was taken on by the hospitals in 2002 to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting.” She was a diversicrat - a booming industry in Eloi America. In 2005, by happy coincidence, just as her husband was coming to national prominence, she received an impressive $200,000 pay raise and was appointed Vice President for Community and External Affairs and put in charge of managing the hospitals’ “business diversity program.” Mrs. Obama famously complained that America is “just downright mean,” and you can see what she’s getting at: she had to make do with a lousy $316,962 plus benefits for a job so necessary to the hospitals that when she quit become First Lady they didn’t bother replacing her.’ - Mark Steyn

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

I don’t know much about Ann Romney other than that she has 5 sons and 16 grandchildren. So I couldn’t say much about her. However, Michelle Obama is a spoiled, ignorant, self-obsessed product of her generation - like Barack she despises America. “We are the ones we have been waiting for” said Obama when he was elected. These people are narcissistic ideologues. Carry on Mark:

'Michelle Obama was born in 1964, so, unlike Condi Rice, she has no vivid childhood memories of racial segregation. She was among the first generation to benefit from “affirmative action,” which was supposed to ameliorate the lingering grievances of racism but seems, in Mrs. Obama’s case, merely to have transformed them into post-modern pseudo-grievance. “All my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me,” she told an audience in Madison. “Every step of the way, there was somebody there telling me what I couldn’t do. Applied to Princeton. ‘You can’t go there, your test scores aren’t high enough.’ I went. I graduated with departmental honors. And then I wanted to go to Harvard. And that was probably a little too tough for me. I didn’t even know why they said that.”

But hang on. Her test scores weren’t “high enough” for Princeton? Yet, rather than telling her “You can’t go there,” they took her anyway. And all the thanks they get is that her test scores are now a recurring point of resentment: “The stuff that we’re seeing in these polls,” she told another audience, "has played out my whole life. You know, always being told by somebody that I’m not ready, that I can’t do something, my scores weren’t high enough, that’d be that(Teresa Heinz Kerry could probably leverage the whole Mozambican thing). Yet Mrs. Obama regards contemporary state-mandated compensation for institutional racism from before she was born as merely another burden to bear. In a testament to an age of boundless self-infatuation, she arrived as a black woman at Princeton and wrote her undergraduate thesis on the difficulties of being a black woman at Princeton. “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” is a self-meditation by the then Miss Robinson on the question of whether an Ivy League black student drawin into the white world is betraying lower-class blacks. Or as she put it:

‘A separationist is more likely to have a realistic impression of the plight of the Black lower class because of the likelihood that a separationist is more closely associated with the Black lower clss than are integrationist[sic]. By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desparation[sic] of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.’

Ah, the benefits of an elite education. Suppose Michelle Obama had not suffered the crippling burden of being American but had instead been born in France or Switzerland, India or China. In less enlightened lands, when you’re told “Your test scores aren’t high enough,” that’s it, you can’t go. To get into America’s best schools and join its elite, you need mediocre grades and approved social points. Harvard’s defense of “affirmative action” rests on the benefits of “diversity.”

silee · April 14, 2012, 3:54am

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

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

[/quote]

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

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.com/blog5.php/2012/03/26/romney-eliminate-government-and-shutter-cabinet-agencies-books-into-balance

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.[/quote]

what like Bush who blew a surplus that Clinton left him? Romney is no conservative so he’s just talking to the base now. Good word for them too, base. Right now though the base of the Republican party is the extreme right wing. If he follows Bush then the whole country is in for hard times. Bush didn’t pay for the cost of the war plus he gave away 5 trillion in taxes mostly to the 1%. If Romney cut taxes in Massachusetts I’ll be dammed if i saw those cuts. Also he pays less in taxes than most working joes here do.

Draugr · April 14, 2012, 12:55pm

[quote]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? [/quote]

Somehow i have the feeling that zeb is a fucking idiot, possibly a troll.

Tiribulus · April 14, 2012, 1:02pm

[quote]Draugr wrote:<<< Somehow i have the feeling that zeb is a fucking idiot, possibly a troll.[/quote]Somehow I have the feeling you’re a thirteen year old T-Nation noob who should worry about learning to shave before assaulting the grown ups on an internet forum.

Draugr · April 14, 2012, 1:18pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Draugr wrote:<<< Somehow i have the feeling that zeb is a fucking idiot, possibly a troll.[/quote]Somehow I have the feeling you’re a thirteen year old T-Nation noob who should worry about learning to shave before assaulting the grown ups on an internet forum.
[/quote]
I’ve lurked here for about a year now and nearly every one of zebs replies to a dissenting opinion is either an ad hominem or fucking idiotic.

And i’ve noticed most of you PWI trolls don’t have pics in your hub or really anything to prove that you lift. Does it make you feel like a big man to troll a B.B. site, or is it just a reminder that your a fat old man?

ZEB · April 14, 2012, 2:48pm

[quote]Draugr wrote:

[quote]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? [/quote]

Somehow i have the feeling that zeb is a fucking idiot, possibly a troll.[/quote]

Says the guy who has been on T Nation for 7 months with a whopping 23 posts. Nice of you to drop by but in PWI we actually like to debate facts as well as opinions.

Now if you can actually refute what I’ve posted that might be better way to express yourself

Can you do it?

Let’s see…

ZEB · April 14, 2012, 2:50pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Draugr wrote:<<< Somehow i have the feeling that zeb is a fucking idiot, possibly a troll.[/quote]Somehow I have the feeling you’re a thirteen year old T-Nation noob who should worry about learning to shave before assaulting the grown ups on an internet forum.
[/quote]

LOL…

ZEB · April 14, 2012, 3:12pm

[quote]silee wrote:

Romney is no conservative[/quote]

I never said that he was now did I?

Untrue,the right wing of the republican party is not the base. Those who identify themselves as extreme right are less than 30% of republican voters. The number varies based on when and who does the polling. One more point of fact, primaries are always dominated by each end of the party. Democrats are dominated by the left wing in their primaries and republicans right wing in theirs. Even so with candidates like Santorum, Gingrich and Perry all more conservative than Romney the latter still won the nomination. This proves that the republicans are certainly NOT dominated by the extreme right wing.

Untrue, the Bush tax cuts were a 5% cut to all tax paying Americans. And since YOU mentioned the top 1% those are the very people who (as a group) pay the most taxes. The top 1% pay almost 37% of all taxes paid!

It could be you were not paying attention. Or, it could be that you are so partisan that you don’t want to admit it. But the fact is Romney cut taxes in Massachusetts 19 times!

http://aboutmittromney.com/taxes.htm

Untrue, you have almost a perfect record of not being incorrect!

Mitt Romney actually paid more in taxes than all of us, didn’t know that did you? When he first made his money in the private sector he paid the top rate in federal and state taxes. Now that he’s made his money he is taxed once again on his investments it’s called capital gains taxes. That means that he has been taxed twice on the same money. One more point to consider, when he dies he will once again pay a third time on the money that he made. And those taxes are called estate taxes.

There’s quite a lot of disinformation spread by the liberal media.

SexMachine · April 14, 2012, 3:59pm

[quote]silee wrote:

…he(Romney) pays less in taxes than most working joes here do. [/quote]

“PRESIDENT PAID LOWER RATE THAN SECRETARY?”

“Obama Family Tax Shelter”

OBAMA DOESN’T QUALIFY FOR OWN 'BUFFETT RULE:

'President Obama earned $789,674 in 2011, the White House announced on Friday. However, with this income, he does not even qualify for the so-called Buffett Rule that he has promoted relentlessly and the Senate will take up on Monday.

The Buffett Rule calls for those making over $1 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate, named after billionaire Warren Buffett. The president did earn over $1 million in previous years–$1.7 million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009.

The president paid $162,074 in taxes with an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5 percent, according to the returns.

Thank you Matt Drudge. Always with the gold. Obama is officially the 1%. A multi-millionaire fat cat.

ZEB · April 14, 2012, 4:08pm

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

…he(Romney) pays less in taxes than most working joes here do. [/quote]

“PRESIDENT PAID LOWER RATE THAN SECRETARY?”

“Obama Family Tax Shelter”

OBAMA DOESN’T QUALIFY FOR OWN 'BUFFETT RULE:

'President Obama earned $789,674 in 2011, the White House announced on Friday. However, with this income, he does not even qualify for the so-called Buffett Rule that he has promoted relentlessly and the Senate will take up on Monday.

The Buffett Rule calls for those making over $1 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate, named after billionaire Warren Buffett. The president did earn over $1 million in previous years–$1.7 million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009.

The president paid $162,074 in taxes with an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5 percent, according to the returns.

Thank you Matt Drudge. Always with the gold. Obama is officially the 1%. A multi-millionaire fat cat.[/quote]

LOL…priceless!

Tiribulus · April 14, 2012, 5:34pm

[quote]Draugr wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Draugr wrote:<<< Somehow i have the feeling that zeb is a fucking idiot, possibly a troll.[/quote]Somehow I have the feeling you’re a thirteen year old T-Nation noob who should worry about learning to shave before assaulting the grown ups on an internet forum.
[/quote]
I’ve lurked here for about a year now and nearly every one of zebs replies to a dissenting opinion is either an ad hominem or fucking idiotic.

And i’ve noticed most of you PWI trolls don’t have pics in your hub or really anything to prove that you lift. Does it make you feel like a big man to troll a B.B. site, or is it just a reminder that your a fat old man?[/quote]ZEB and I don’t see eye to eye in every instance, but this is quite simply untrue. Here’s a tip for your future lurking career. Hooked on Phonics – Learn to read This pic is the best I can do on such short notice. I just turned 48 and have gained about 45-50 solid pounds and was indeed a slovenly fat pig with a huge beer belly and a double chin 6 years ago.

My next response will cost you $19:95 plus my usual 10 dollar child smart@$$ fee so be aware.

Hell_Billy · April 14, 2012, 6:00pm