So, birthers?

[El Jefe]

Let's see if I have this straight. When Obama initially chose not to
release a 45+ year old document -- for which there was no precedence
-- you shat yourselves and claimed he must be hiding something. And
even AFTER he released it, you were still frothing at the mouth,
looking for something, *anything* to convince yourselves it was a
forgery.

BUT, when your current prez hopeful, Romneybot Model #2012, refuses to
release his tax documents --for which there IS a precedence, started
by his own father, no less -- you're nowhere to be found. Not a peep.

Are you just to busy still scanning Obama's birth certificate for
Photoshop evidence? Perhaps what miniscule brains you had imploded
over your inability to reconcile how Obama's health care bill is
"socialism", but Bush's prescription plan wasn't? WHAT IS ROMNEY
HIDING, BIRTHERS? WHERE IS YOUR RAGE??

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Being a citizen is a requirement. Many think he isn't.
Giving up your tax returns is voluntary.
As is giving up your health report.
As is giving up your college records.

I know Romney is mega-rich, as is Obama, Pelosi,
Oprah, Gore, Clinton and Soros and all the others.

What I don't know is why both Obamas gave up
their law licenses. I am also guessing BO went to
school as a foreign student. There IS a precedence
here. WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING? WHERE IS YOUR RAGE?

[FVH]

Obama's black and Romney's white. Of course they won't admit it, but
that's the only reason the HOOD RATS give Romney a pass and
irrationally question Obama's background.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

[FVH]

On Jul 29, 1:16 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Being a citizen is a requirement. Many think he isn't.

Wrong, dummy. Many KNOW he is. Only racist fools like you question
whether he is or not. You've been presented with solid proof, yet you
still dismiss it, la la land boy.

> Giving up your tax returns is voluntary.
> As is giving up your health report.
> As is giving up your college records.

As is providing your BC twice.

> I know Romney is mega-rich, as is Obama, Pelosi, Oprah, Gore, Clinton and Soros and all the others.

I love it when you ramble off topic, TCT Puddy.

> What I don't know is why both Obamas gave up their law licenses. I am also guessing BO went to school as a foreign student. There IS a precedence here.

If you stop ranting and raving for 5 minutes and do some research
you'd have the answer you don't want to see.

> WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING? WHERE IS YOUR RAGE?

HE'S HIDING NOTHING, HOT HEAD. WE DON'T HAVE RAGE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
RACIST LIKE YOU, LAWN BOY.

[El Jefe]

On Jul 29, 1:16 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Being a citizen is a requirement. Many think he isn't.

Only "many" repubs/righties/morons think this -- and that's despite
plenty of evidence to the contrary. When you are confronted with
overwhelming evidence yet still deny what that evidence confirms...you
are an idiot.

> Giving up your tax returns is voluntary.

It has a political precedence. Releasing birth certificates --
multiple times, no less -- does not.

> I know Romney is mega-rich, as is Obama, Pelosi,
> Oprah, Gore, Clinton and Soros and all the others.

Being rich has nothing to do with it. Indeed, everyone knows Romney is
quite wealthy. That's not why people -- including those in his own
party -- are baffled by his reluctance to do what has been the norm
for decades.

> What I don't know is why both Obamas gave up
> their law licenses. I am also guessing BO went to
> school as a foreign student. There IS a precedence
> here. WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING? WHERE IS YOUR RAGE?

Seriously?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

It's very telling that you're offering up a defense for birthers *and*
floating around yet another debunked "theory" about Obama, but you're
just fine with letting Romney dance around his tax returns.

I think you're more in league with the birther dopes than you want to
let on.

El Jefe

[El Jefe]

On Jul 29, 3:35 pm, FVH <jarjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obama's black and Romney's white. Of course they won't admit it, but
> that's the only reason the HOOD RATS give Romney a pass and
> irrationally question Obama's background.

It's total hypocrisy. I don't think Romney has done anything illegal
tax-wise, but my guess is that he knows if people see the loopholes he
takes advantage of, it'll derail his run. Not that he isn't already
doing a fine job of making that happen already. I think he's
particularly sensitive about 2009 because he likely paid no taxes --
again, nothing illegal, but not something that will serve to make him
look good. I also think the whole "was he/wasn't he CEO of Bain for 3
years" thing is a part of it.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:


>> Giving up your tax returns is voluntary.
>
> It has a political precedence. Releasing birth certificates --
> multiple times, no less -- does not.

They nagged Bush til he released his college records.
So what?

>> I know Romney is mega-rich, as is Obama, Pelosi,
>> Oprah, Gore, Clinton and Soros and all the others.
>
> Being rich has nothing to do with it. Indeed, everyone knows Romney is
> quite wealthy. That's not why people -- including those in his own
> party -- are baffled by his reluctance to do what has been the norm
> for decades.

He released last years and this years <estimated>.
Why do you or anyone else care about his financials?

>> What I don't know is why both Obamas gave up
>> their law licenses. I am also guessing BO went to
>> school as a foreign student. There IS a precedence
>> here. WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING? WHERE IS YOUR RAGE?
>
> Seriously?
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

I find it odd that they both 'voluntarily surrendered' their licenses.
It doesn't bother me, no lost sleep, not made an issue of it, don't
really care. Much like the issue of Romney and his tax reports
for the last 5, 10 or 20 years. Much like Obama and his birth
certificate.

> It's very telling that you're offering up a defense for birthers *and*
> floating around yet another debunked "theory" about Obama, but you're
> just fine with letting Romney dance around his tax returns.
>
> I think you're more in league with the birther dopes than you want to
> let on.

I've stated plainly here at least 3 times. Believe what you will.

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:

> It's total hypocrisy. I don't think Romney has done anything illegal
> tax-wise, but my guess is that he knows if people see the loopholes he
> takes advantage of, it'll derail his run. Not that he isn't already
> doing a fine job of making that happen already. I think he's
> particularly sensitive about 2009 because he likely paid no taxes --
> again, nothing illegal, but not something that will serve to make him
> look good. I also think the whole "was he/wasn't he CEO of Bain for 3
> years" thing is a part of it.

There's a whole lot of issues that really matter.
Obama addresses none of those. Every major
economist says we're heading for disaster.

Someone recently asked Pelosi if she would be
willing to release her financials. She all but shit a brick.

[AJ]

Anyone wanting four more years of Obama is just way too stupid to
argue with. .

[FVH]

I bet it took you all day to think of that "gem", Professor.

[steveh99]

In article <56f61e55-6c9e-4a91-b85f-
d4c1fa...@f16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

>
> Anyone wanting four more years of Obama is just way too stupid to
> argue with. .

As always you're the first to bellow

[El Jefe]

On Jul 29, 5:09 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> They nagged Bush til he released his college records.

No, they were leaked. Then he officially released them. And as I said
the last time this was brought up: that was ridiculous. Certainly no
one needed them to know that he was an intellectual lightweight and
generally incurious.

Gore's transcripts were also leaked. Lame as well.

> He released last years and this years <estimated>.

So why not follow the norm and go back at least a decade?

> Why do you or anyone else care about his financials?

The better question is: why don't *you* care? How many posts have I
read from you inferring that Obama is hiding something re: college
transcripts, law licenses, <insert dragon to slay here>....yet here's
Romneybot openly refusing to do something that is considered a norm
and has been for decades -- a norm started by his father, no less --
and it doesn't make you wonder at all?

Do you suddenly not agree that a potential pres should be open about
his/her finances? I can't see you giving Obama a pass if he'd refused
to release his taxes.

> I find it odd that they both 'voluntarily surrendered' their licenses.

They didn't "voluntarily surrender" their licenses. Did you even
bother to read that article? This is why I often find it pointless to
link to anything in these discussions.

> It doesn't bother me, no lost sleep, not made an issue of it, don't
> really care. Much like the issue of Romney and his tax reports
> for the last 5, 10 or 20 years. Much like Obama and his birth
> certificate.

Why would it be odd? If you didn't plan on driving for an extended
period of time, would it be odd to decide not to renew your driver's
license? I see little difference here.

> I've stated plainly here at least 3 times. Believe what you will.

Just sayin'...you appear eager to believe anything that casts Obama as
suspicious and perhaps "not one of us". It's the birther mentality in
general.

El Jefe

[El Jefe]

On Jul 29, 5:11 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> There's a whole lot of issues that really matter.
> Obama addresses none of those.

*yawn*

Yet another imaginary dragon to slay...

> Someone recently asked Pelosi if she would be
> willing to release her financials. She all but shit a brick.

There are hundreds of Congresscritters *from both parties* that are
sketchy about this. Just can't resist bringing up that Pelosi hatred,
can ya?

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:

>> There's a whole lot of issues that really matter.
>> Obama addresses none of those.
>
> *yawn*
>
> Yet another imaginary dragon to slay...

How is it imaginary? SS, MC, 15 trillion... these are the things
that REALLY matter. Gays in the military, gay marriage,
and a host of other things he's done to appease his core
are not important to you or me or the health of this nation.

>> Someone recently asked Pelosi if she would be
>> willing to release her financials. She all but shit a brick.
>
> There are hundreds of Congresscritters *from both parties* that are
> sketchy about this. Just can't resist bringing up that Pelosi hatred,
> can ya?

I bring it up because Pelosi was asked. The same as I brought up
Reid shirking off the question of gun legislation.

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:

>> They nagged Bush til he released his college records.
>
> No, they were leaked. Then he officially released them. And as I said
> the last time this was brought up: that was ridiculous. Certainly no
> one needed them to know that he was an intellectual lightweight and
> generally incurious.
>
> Gore's transcripts were also leaked. Lame as well.
>
>> He released last years and this years <estimated>.
>
> So why not follow the norm and go back at least a decade?

Carter released three years, Ford none. Reagan released six,
George Sr. released three, Gingrich one. There is no 'norm'.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

>> Why do you or anyone else care about his financials?
>
> The better question is: why don't *you* care? How many posts have I
> read from you inferring that Obama is hiding something re: college
> transcripts, law licenses, <insert dragon to slay here>....yet here's
> Romneybot openly refusing to do something that is considered a norm
> and has been for decades -- a norm started by his father, no less --
> and it doesn't make you wonder at all?

You said yourself that he hasn't likely commited any offense.
This is an attempt to make him look bad for his success. The
same success enjoyed by everyone from Oprah to Soros to
Gore to Pelosi. There is a BIG difference in that and transcripts
that may indeed show illegal behavior <such as registering as
a foreign student> or that may give away a much more
deviant or subversive attitude. . I want to know a mindset
more than what a man is worth. We know Romney is mega-rich...
just how 'mega' is not really a factor. Regarding health records -
we want and deserve to know if our prez is healthy. Regarding
college records - we don't necessarily 'deserve' to know, but it
is often a revealing insight. This was true of his wife and her thesis.

Along with what I previously stated -
Let's assume he pulls out his original bc... he has
an original - he was born in Hawaii -- it is beyond
dispute. Okay - so he's a natural born citizen. But
being on foreign soil and wanting to study in the
US -- how can he do this? It's my guess that he
<never thinking at ALL about being a US president
at this point> enrolled as a foreign born student.
I can see this happening... I can see myself having
done it. But if that is what he did, it throws a rock
into the gearwork. Everything comes to a halt.
Everything is wrecked. It is either that or he wants
to hide facts that show him to be much more of a
radical back then. And I can see that too -- I was
FAR more a radical in my youth.

Neither of these two things are very 'bad' given the
time/era they happened. But it just so happens that
with either one being true - it sure as hell totally fucks
up 'today'.

Just my two cents.

> Do you suddenly not agree that a potential pres should be open about
> his/her finances? I can't see you giving Obama a pass if he'd refused
> to release his taxes.

I have never once investigated the tax returns <or cared>
of a president or a candidate. It's a given that they are
all in another realm from the masses. There are two slight
exceptions to this, Obama and Clinton. Clinton had no chance
whatsoever... no dem wanted to be defeated by the incumbent
Bush Sr. Then came two things -- "no new taxes" and Ross Perot.

likewise -

Obama went from a total unknown to sweep the nation with
a 'new hope'. It only stands to reason that they would gladly
throw that info out there. It 'shows' that they are 'closer' to
the working class. OTOH, those with huge money, dirty or
not, simply don't want to open those doors.

>> I find it odd that they both 'voluntarily surrendered' their
>> licenses.
>
> They didn't "voluntarily surrender" their licenses. Did you even
> bother to read that article? This is why I often find it pointless to
> link to anything in these discussions.

I read the entire link. They neither hold a current license.
They gave those up either voluntarily or not.

From your article - < did YOU read it? >

"unlike his wife, he "voluntarily retired" rather than going on
"voluntarily inactive" status. Neither of the Obamas was
irrevocably stripped of their law licenses through the action of
"surrendering" them.

And I at no time either said nor implied they had been
stripped of their license(s).

>> It doesn't bother me, no lost sleep, not made an issue of it, don't
>> really care. Much like the issue of Romney and his tax reports
>> for the last 5, 10 or 20 years. Much like Obama and his birth
>> certificate.

> Why would it be odd? If you didn't plan on driving for an extended
> period of time, would it be odd to decide not to renew your driver's
> license? I see little difference here.

Clinton did not give his up until Monica. If you are a nurse
or a CPA or a doctor<insert others> you usually always maintain
your license as it is much harder to go back after it later.
I've known this to be the case personally. Many times.

They're both <fairly> young and this gig has an 8 year limit. It'd be
interesting to know (being as lawyers make up a huge percentage
of the house and senate) how many other politicians have
surrendered theirs.

>> I've stated plainly here at least 3 times. Believe what you will.
>
> Just sayin'...you appear eager to believe anything that casts Obama as
> suspicious and perhaps "not one of us". It's the birther mentality in
> general.

Maybe you're just seeking something lurking in the background.

Very simple - I don't care that he is <half> black.
I don't care where he was born at this point.. tho he
should have addressed it rather than letting it drag for
two years in the media.

I don't care much about his massive amount of golfing,
endless fundraising or most of the many lies he's told
regarding openess, posting bills, healing this country,
etc etc etc... because they are ALL liars for the most part.

I want a president that will address the monetary issues
we are facing.. take foreign aid from ALL other countries
for now, take away ALL gov't subsidies. I want a
motherfucker that will look at California having hundreds
<if not in the thousands> of state and local agencies that
overlap. I want a man with balls to weed out those who
abuse our genorosity -- aka welfare cheats <both the
doctors and the citizens> and so on and so on. Ethanol -
I've cursed it for years and look at corn and meat prices.
Farmers are begging for an exemption from the mandatory
inclusion into gasoline. Meat poltry and other prices going
up as a result. I just want a man there that will dismantle
the ignorant, bloated, corrupt place that is Washington DC.
No more of our money going to GM or to the numerous
Solyndras we've seen. Everytime Greece or Spain gets
mentioned, markets across the world go nuts. You cannot
even begin to imagine what is going to happen when
we become Greece or Spain. Our housing crisis set the
entire world on fire. This is going to be ten times worse
if we don't clean up our own shit. What I DON'T want
is even more rules and regulations, more spending, more
liars in the White House. What do YOU want?

[AJ]

Typical little sniffling liberal bitch. You worry about this little
minute topic and for the past few years you've been defending and
praising the worst President ever. Go figure.

[AJ]

On Jul 31, 3:06 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> El Jefe wrote:
> >> There's a whole lot of issues that really matter.
> >> Obama addresses none of those.
>
> > *yawn*
>
> > Yet another imaginary dragon to slay...
>
> How is it imaginary?

Because MSNBC didn't have the guts to broadcast these topics and his
kool aid drinking dumbass is unaware, but aren't most liberals?

[El Jefe]

On Jul 31, 3:06 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> How is it imaginary? SS, MC, 15 trillion... these are the things
> that REALLY matter. Gays in the military, gay marriage,
> and a host of other things he's done to appease his core
> are not important to you or me or the health of this nation.

It's the imaginary "Obama hasn't done anything but cater to the
<insert conservative-hated group here>" dragon. I'm not going to
rehash how many things have been stonewalled by repubs "because Obama
proposed it" yet again. You know it's true; even things they
previously liked became bad "because Obama....". They have no interest
in seeing the economy fully recover "because Obama".

If you like abortion bills, however, you must be thrilled with repubs.
Seems to be all they care about. That and censuring -- further proof
that righties are indeed quite uncomfortable with vaginas. =)

El Jefe

[AJ]

On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, El Jefe <jefepicksstrawberr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you like abortion bills, however, you must be thrilled with repubs.
> Seems to be all they care about.

Yes that what all Repubs care about. What an idiot.

[steveh99]

In article <0bb5a8eb-d1c0-453f-adf8-f3bdb380c781
@c11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, jefepickss...@gmail.com says...

LOL

[FVH]

As opposed to you who nitpicks anything and everything you think Obama
has/hasn't done. You've done nothing but whine, bitch, and moan since
1/20/2009 and haven't provided one shred of evidence to back up your
fat claims. Go stare at pictures of Paul a bit more--you clearly need
to clean out the fat pipes, fat faggot.

[FVH]

You calling someone an idiot is like you calling someone fat and/or
gay.

[FVH]

I post links because I like to watch the HOOD RATS run in fear from
reality.

[El Jefe]

On Jul 31, 4:02 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Carter released three years, Ford none. Reagan released six,
> George Sr. released three, Gingrich one. There is no 'norm'.http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

Gingrich doesn't count; he was never an official pres candidate. So
that aside, you have to go back more than 30 years to find one who
released less than 5 years of returns. So fine, we'll call five the
norm. That still puts Romneybot well below things. Just one for him.
His own father said "one could be a fluke".

> You said yourself that he hasn't likely commited any offense.
> This is an attempt to make him look bad for his success.

Oh...the "Obama is anti-success" dragon. Nonsense. It's an attempt to
make Romneybot look bad for being an out-of-touch elite who uses
loopholes, tax havens, etc. to further line his pockets...while
producing/providing nothing of value. And it's no worse a tactic than
harping on birth certificates, college transcripts, licenses...did I
miss any? Oh, yes...eating dog.

> The same success enjoyed by everyone from Oprah to Soros to
> Gore to Pelosi. There is a BIG difference in that and transcripts
> that may indeed show illegal behavior <such as registering as
> a foreign student> or that may give away a much more
> deviant or subversive attitude.

You do realize that this whole "foreign student" thing is a hoax...no?
Guess not. It was an April Fool's joke...another chain email, which
you seem to be falling for quite a bit these days. And this is yet
another birther thing.

> I want to know a mindset
> more than what a man is worth. We know Romney is mega-rich...
> just how 'mega' is not really a factor.

Again, it has nothing to with how much $ he has. Mindset, you say? I
question the mindset of a guy who makes as much as he does while
paying the same tax rate as those who make $17,000 - $69,000, and then
claims that people like him pay too much in taxes (if they pay them at
all, and my guess is that he didn't in 2009, hence the hesitation). I
question the mindset of a guy whose background consists of short term
buying and selling using other people's money while outsourcing jobs
-- no starting businesses, no inventing anything, no production of any
kind -- thinking that he's somehow got a grip on job creation and is
good for the economy. I question the mindset of anyone who thinks he
is as well. This country is not a financial statement.

I don't begrudge him his wealth. But I do think he's completely
clueless about those not in his very tiny circle. You, me...we're The
Help. You mow his lawn. I serve him...well, I guess milk and cookies,
given the mormon thing. He displays his discomfort around The Help
routinely. He denounces the one thing he did as gov that made him seem
briefly human. Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple. This
country does NOT need someone like him at this time. Never, really.
He's simply the wrong guy for the presidency.

> Regarding health records -
> we want and deserve to know if our prez is healthy. Regarding
> college records - we don't necessarily 'deserve' to know, but it
> is often a revealing insight. This was true of his wife and her thesis.

No less revealing than tax returns. And I still don't really see what
college records *do* reveal. Would any of your grades reflect who you
are today? I was put into school early because of early aptitude, took
advanced classes, was immersed in computers, all that jazz...think
anyone believed at the time it would lead to me being behind the
stick?

> Along with what I previously stated -
> Let's assume he pulls out his original bc... he has
> an original - he was born in Hawaii -- it is beyond
> dispute. Okay - so he's a natural born citizen. But
> being on foreign soil and wanting to study in the
> US -- how can he do this? It's my guess that he
> <never thinking at ALL about being a US president
> at this point> enrolled as a foreign born student.
> I can see this happening... I can see myself having
> done it. But if that is what he did, it throws a rock
> into the gearwork. Everything comes to a halt.
> Everything is wrecked. It is either that or he wants
> to hide facts that show him to be much more of a
> radical back then. And I can see that too -- I was
> FAR more a radical in my youth.
>
> Neither of these two things are very 'bad' given the
> time/era they happened. But it just so happens that
> with either one being true - it sure as hell totally fucks
> up 'today'.
>
> Just my two cents.

Again, the foreign student thing is a hoax. The American Family
Association got busted trying to pass off an altered ID as Obama's.
This is stuff for the gullible, nothing more.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

> I read the entire link. They neither hold a current license.
> They gave those up either voluntarily or not.
>
> From your article -   < did YOU read it? >

You wrote: "I find it odd that they both 'voluntarily surrendered'
their licenses."

They did not "surrender" their licenses.

> "unlike his wife, he "voluntarily retired" rather than going on
> "voluntarily inactive" status. Neither of the Obamas was
> irrevocably stripped of their law licenses through the action of
> "surrendering" them.
>
> And I at no time either said nor implied they had been
> stripped of their license(s).

Nor did I suggest as much.

> Clinton did not give his up until Monica. If you are a nurse
> or a CPA or a doctor<insert others> you usually always maintain
> your license as it is much harder to go back after it later.
> I've known this to be the case personally. Many times.
>
> They're both <fairly> young and this gig has an 8 year limit. It'd be
> interesting to know (being as lawyers make up a huge percentage
> of the house and senate) how many other politicians have
> surrendered theirs.

From what I can tell, reactivating a law license is a pretty simple
thing to do: pay a fee, maybe take a few courses. Maintaining active
status requires the sames things...perhaps they just decided there was
no point if they weren't going to be practicing law? I know, it's not
nefarious. Reality is often like that.

> Maybe you're just seeking something lurking in the background.

What I'm seeing is that while you're not on about his bc, you *are* on
about other birther "concerns". College transcripts. Law licenses.
Being a foreign student.

I can tell you what I *don't* want: a private-equity president bent on
more austerity.

We live in a corporatocracy. Until that changes, nothing else will.

El Jefe

[El Jefe]

On Jul 31, 4:07 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Typical little sniffling liberal bitch.  You worry about this little
> minute topic and for the past few years you've been defending and
> praising the worst President ever.  Go figure.

Right...minute compared to the chain emails you love to post here.
Those *truly* are important issues.

And if it's so minute, why are people on your "side" also criticizing
him for it? He's making it a bigger issue by *not* releasing them.

El Jefe

[El Jefe]

On Jul 31, 4:19 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Because MSNBC didn't have the guts to broadcast these topics and his
> kool aid drinking dumbass is unaware, but aren't most liberals?

Dude...you need some new material. This is staler than the crust in
your Kiss panties.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:

>> Carter released three years, Ford none. Reagan released six,
>> George Sr. released three, Gingrich one. There is no
>> 'norm'.http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns
>
> Gingrich doesn't count; he was never an official pres candidate. So
> that aside, you have to go back more than 30 years to find one who
> released less than 5 years of returns. So fine, we'll call five the
> norm. That still puts Romneybot well below things. Just one for him.
> His own father said "one could be a fluke".

Doesn't matter. It's like the college records -- it's
non-mandatory. SHOULD he have maybe released
more to appease <whoever>? You can care if you
wish, I don't. I'd like to see the college records, it
ain't gonna happen.... so there ya go.

>> You said yourself that he hasn't likely commited any offense.
>> This is an attempt to make him look bad for his success.
>
> Oh...the "Obama is anti-success" dragon. Nonsense. It's an attempt to
> make Romneybot look bad for being an out-of-touch elite who uses
> loopholes, tax havens, etc. to further line his pockets...while
> producing/providing nothing of value. And it's no worse a tactic than
> harping on birth certificates, college transcripts, licenses...did I
> miss any? Oh, yes...eating dog.

Last I saw it was well over 80% of 'anti-Romney' ads that
dems were running. They ain't talking about his Mass. hc plan.
They ain't talking about what he's for or against. They're talking
about Bain and 'how many jobs went out' on his watch. They're
hammering nearly every single commercial at his financials,
one way or the other.

Dogs? Obama brought that up, it got minimum <at best>
attention. The bc issue is amongst a very few, licenses
and transcripts is simply our talk of the day. That shit
ain't keeping or making any press.

>
>> The same success enjoyed by everyone from Oprah to Soros to
>> Gore to Pelosi. There is a BIG difference in that and transcripts
>> that may indeed show illegal behavior <such as registering as
>> a foreign student> or that may give away a much more
>> deviant or subversive attitude.
>
> You do realize that this whole "foreign student" thing is a hoax...no?
> Guess not. It was an April Fool's joke...another chain email, which
> you seem to be falling for quite a bit these days. And this is yet
> another birther thing.

Explain any way that you wish why such an accomplished
student would not show his records...

>> I want to know a mindset
>> more than what a man is worth. We know Romney is mega-rich...
>> just how 'mega' is not really a factor.
>
> Again, it has nothing to with how much $ he has. Mindset, you say? I
> question the mindset of a guy who makes as much as he does while
> paying the same tax rate as those who make $17,000 - $69,000, and then
> claims that people like him pay too much in taxes (if they pay them at
> all, and my guess is that he didn't in 2009, hence the hesitation). I
> question the mindset of a guy whose background consists of short term
> buying and selling using other people's money while outsourcing jobs
> -- no starting businesses, no inventing anything, no production of any
> kind -- thinking that he's somehow got a grip on job creation and is
> good for the economy. I question the mindset of anyone who thinks he
> is as well. This country is not a financial statement.

And he ain't running on his past success as a capitolist either.
No more than Obama ran on being a social organizer.

>
> I don't begrudge him his wealth. But I do think he's completely
> clueless about those not in his very tiny circle. You, me...we're The
> Help. You mow his lawn. I serve him...well, I guess milk and cookies,
> given the mormon thing. He displays his discomfort around The Help
> routinely. He denounces the one thing he did as gov that made him seem
> briefly human. Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple.

You surely fully understand that there are totally different
classes of people? To say he doesn't relate <on a personal
level> to you or I --- well shit.... you or I wouldn't relate
to the average female, the average black male, the average
asisan. Is there a guy running for prez, with any hope in hell,
that is actually working for a living and making 50k a year or less?

> This country does NOT need
> someone like him at this time. Never, really.
> He's simply the wrong guy for the presidency.

There is no 'right' guy running that has any chance.

>> Regarding health records -
>> we want and deserve to know if our prez is healthy. Regarding
>> college records - we don't necessarily 'deserve' to know, but it
>> is often a revealing insight. This was true of his wife and her
>> thesis.
>
> No less revealing than tax returns. And I still don't really see what
> college records *do* reveal. Would any of your grades reflect who you
> are today? I was put into school early because of early aptitude, took
> advanced classes, was immersed in computers, all that jazz...think
> anyone believed at the time it would lead to me being behind the
> stick?

Our records reflect VERY much on us. And the types of
records at an Ivy League school say volumes more.

> Again, the foreign student thing is a hoax. The American Family
> Association got busted trying to pass off an altered ID as Obama's.
> This is stuff for the gullible, nothing more.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

I don't recall reading any stories focusing on his being
enrolled as a foreign citizen. I have seen the possibilites
mentioned, and can see that being a legitimate theory.

>> I read the entire link. They neither hold a current license.
>> They gave those up either voluntarily or not.
>>
>> From your article - < did YOU read it? >
>
> You wrote: "I find it odd that they both 'voluntarily surrendered'
> their licenses."
>
> They did not "surrender" their licenses.

<sigh> Please then, rephrase it in YOUR words as to how
they both held a license and now they don't. I await your
reply.

>> They're both <fairly> young and this gig has an 8 year limit. It'd be
>> interesting to know (being as lawyers make up a huge percentage
>> of the house and senate) how many other politicians have
>> surrendered theirs.
>
> From what I can tell, reactivating a law license is a pretty simple
> thing to do: pay a fee, maybe take a few courses. Maintaining active
> status requires the sames things...perhaps they just decided there was
> no point if they weren't going to be practicing law? I know, it's not
> nefarious. Reality is often like that.

Going back and making up courses <especially those that
would pile up after a 4 or 8 year period> is a major pain in
the ass. Learning and complying with any new rules/regulations
after a prolonged time -> likewise. He <or she> did not go thru
the years, the money etc.. to say "we'll neither one practice law
again"... I just don't see it. My opinion.

>> Maybe you're just seeking something lurking in the background.
>
> What I'm seeing is that while you're not on about his bc, you *are* on
> about other birther "concerns". College transcripts. Law licenses.
> Being a foreign student.

Bullshit... this is me and you talking smack back and forth
over our president. I don't post ANY political stuff anywhere
to speak of. Not on FB, not on newsgroups, an occasional
rare comment aside. This is just you and I and a <very> few
readers. You see, the thing is, that dems cannot argue most
of what people like me throw at them. The 'big' stuff anyway.
They can't deny still being in foreign countries, 15 tril, etc.
You and I have beat those thiings back and forth many times.
Then you make a post (or sliced... regardless) titled "So, birther?"
or something about the 2nd amendment... then I shouldn't
get into the conversation? then say I'm worried about transcripts
and licenses? Irony much?

Not one of those things weighs heavy on my mind.

You can stop this becoming more and more of a corporate
world. Every movie, every futuristic book or reference
has seen it coming for years. Corps will always play a role,
be it large or small. I don't want them setting policy, I don't
want to see them gain favoritism. But one thing is for sure,
they'll never go away. I've learned to live with gays, goths,
Kardashians etc.. I suggest you get used to the corps. They'll
long outlive both of us.

[83LowRider]

83LowRider wrote:


> You < can't > stop this becoming more and more of a corporate world.

[FVH]

Fox News is the "kool aid" drink of choice for those who fear what
isn't there. Which station do you watch and cite religiously,
Detective?

On Jul 31, 4:19 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

[AJ]

And you just ripped off FVH's old material and actually thought you
were being unique and original?. LOL! Again, more proof liberals
keep repeating mistakes from the past. They can't help it or ever
learn.

[AJ]

Like 83 and all the other sane people have said, there's bigger issues
to worry about. Plus as you have proven, it's killing liberals to try
to find any dirt to blow out of proportion because you fear what you
already know but wont admit......he's better and more qualified than
Obama.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 1, 9:44 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Like 83 and all the other sane people have said, there's bigger issues
> to worry about.  Plus as you have proven, it's killing liberals to try
> to find any dirt to blow out of proportion

Right, who is it again that's been posting chain emails about Obama's
birth certificate in here for the past 4 years? Tell me more about
those "bigger issues", Professor...

> because you fear what you
> already know but wont admit......he's  better and more qualified than
> Obama.

If that's your "opinon", why don't you explain what it is that makes
Romneybot so qualified in your eyes?

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 1, 9:39 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> And you just ripped off FVH's old material and actually thought you
> were being unique and original?.  LOL!

You didn't need a period after that question mark, Professor. Learn
how to use proper grammar. Now get back to work stocking John's
shelves.

El Jefe

[FVH]

Still have FVH on the fat mind, eh? LOL!

On Aug 1, 9:39 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

[FVH]

He's getting angry again. Keep pounding that keyboard, Professor.

[FVH]

I'll answer this for the fat fuck: Romney's white and has a (R) next
to his name.

[AJ]

On Aug 1, 11:14 am, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 1, 9:44 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Like 83 and all the other sane people have said, there's bigger issues
> > to worry about.  Plus as you have proven, it's killing liberals to try
> > to find any dirt to blow out of proportion
>
> Right, who is it again that's been posting chain emails about Obama's
> birth certificate in here for the past 4 years? Tell me more about
> those "bigger issues", Professor...

It's still current news. If it's true, it just proves even more how
much of a fraud he is and how low dems will go.

>
> > because you fear what you
> > already know but wont admit......he's  better and more qualified than
> > Obama.
>
> If that's your "opinon", why don't you explain what it is that makes
> Romneybot so qualified in your eyes?

MR has actually owned a business. Sure it went under, but at least he
has the experience of what to or not to do.

[FVH]

LOL!!! You have such an irrational hatred for your black leader that
you're supporting a businessman whose business went under. You're
supporting a failure because you can't "handel" a black man leading MY
country. You should share your "pure profit" plan with Romney.

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:

> Gingrich doesn't count; he was never an official pres candidate.

A lot of your argument spoke of George Romney.
He was never an official candidate either. He lost to Nixon.

[steveh99]

In article <jvg8td$91g$1...@dont-email.me>, 83low...@nywilldo.com says...

You mean the guy that was born in Mexico?

[AJ]

On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <jvg8td$91...@dont-email.me>, 83lowri...@nywilldo.com says...

>
>
>
> > El Jefe wrote:
>
> > > Gingrich doesn't count; he was never an official pres candidate.
>
> > A lot of your argument spoke of George Romney.
> > He was never an official candidate either. He lost to Nixon.
>
> You mean the guy that was born in Mexico?

George Romney was born to American parents living in the Mormon
colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his
family to flee back to the United States when he was a child. Your
Kenyan joke of a leader is less of American than you can admit.

[83LowRider]

Yes, as AJ stated, the american citizen born of american
parents. Just as John McCain and others have been.

[steveh99]

In article <a471bcd8-d3f6-4c77-aac9-
6934ab...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

> Kenyan joke of a leader is less of American than you can admit.but but

Obama was born to an american woman. Doesnt that count? Although he did
more than prove his citizenship here wouldnt it still count that his
mother was born in the states just like Geo Romney?

[steveh99]

In article <jvhgp6$ppf$1...@dont-email.me>, 83low...@nywilldo.com says...

Obama was an american born to an american citizen, your point?

[83LowRider]

steveh99 wrote:


> Obama was an american born to an american citizen, your point?

The subject had long ago turned to George Romney.

What is YOUR point?

[Captain Napalm]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 21:46:26 -0400, 83LowRider wrote:

> What is YOUR point?

It's on top of his head but that wolfman-like hairdo covers it.

[steveh99]

In article <jvhutj$7vi$1...@dont-email.me>, 83low...@nywilldo.com says...

evasion noted yet again

[83LowRider]

steveh99 wrote:

>>> Obama was an american born to an american citizen, your point?
>>
>> The subject had long ago turned to George Romney.
>>
>> What is YOUR point?
>
> evasion noted yet again

Are you really this stupid or do you just play
the part for USENET?

You wanna tell me -- what in the fuck does G Romney
have to do with that idiot in DC?

Sidenote - I thought you didn't read my posts.

You have FAR more in common with BHO.
Stupid AND a liar.

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:28:34 -0400, 83LowRider wrote:

> Are you really this stupid or do you just play
> the part for USENET?

Have you ever seen Wolfman's picture? He looks like a retarded Neanderthal,
except his forehead slopes even more.

[AJ]

On Aug 3, 7:31 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Obama was an american born to an american citizen, your point?

That's what he wants you to believe and you actually believe it.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 3, 5:24 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> El Jefe wrote:
> > Gingrich doesn't count; he was never an official pres candidate.
>
> A lot of your argument spoke of George Romney.

I don't think it was "a lot", but OK...

> He was never an official candidate either. He lost to Nixon.

My main point in bringing him up is the fact that he's Romneybot's
father. I find it interesting that the father did something willingly
that the son will not...and we have far more reasons to be curious now
than we did during George's time.

But point taken -- and even given that, Gingrich's one release is far
below the average of 5 over the past 30 years.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 1, 4:52 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> It's still current news.

Using your definition of "news", so is Romneybot's refusal to release
more tax returns, dummy.

> MR has actually owned a business.  Sure it went under, but at least he
> has the experience of what to or not to do.

There's really nothing I can add here that would further highlight the
tremendous amount of stupidity it takes to type and believe the above.
"Hey, it's OK if I permanently sink America....I'll just start I NEW
country, cuz I'll "have the experience of what to or not to do".

Dummy.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 2, 12:39 pm, FVH <jarjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL!!! You have such an irrational hatred for your black leader that
> you're supporting a businessman whose business went under. You're
> supporting a failure because you can't "handel" a black man leading MY
> country. You should share your "pure profit" plan with Romney.

This has been true since the Repub Clown Car puttered around a year
ago. No one really likes or wants Romneybot, but he's not Obama, so
they'll hold their nose and vote for the Replicant. It's not unlike
Kerry in 2004.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Jul 31, 6:46 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Last I saw it was well over 80% of 'anti-Romney' ads that
> dems were running. They ain't talking about his Mass. hc plan.
> They ain't talking about what he's for or against. They're talking
> about Bain and 'how many jobs went out' on his watch. They're
> hammering nearly every single commercial at his financials,
> one way or the other.

And what is Romneybot talking about? All I see are him harping on the
false "you didn't build that" meme. That's when he's not making a fool
of himself on the world stage, anyway. He avoids taking questions,
hence the "kiss my ass" hilarity we get from his staff.

> Explain any way that you wish why such an accomplished
> student would not show his records...

"Doesn't matter. It's like the college records -- it's non-mandatory."

And as I already said, college grades mean little 30 years later. I
don't care what grades Romneybot got. I don't care what grades Obama
got. I care about what policies they stand for currently.

I don't really care about Romneybot's tax returns either. But seeing
as Obama has to placate every paste-eating moron out there by
releasing everything they demand, I fail to see why Romneybot
shouldn't be held to something of a similar standard. Explain any way
you wish why such an "accomplished businessman" would not show his tax
records?

> And he ain't running on his past success as a capitolist either.

Are you even paying attention to what Romney says? His entire
"campaign" is him touting his business experience as a way to fix the
economy. He stated himself he'd "create 12 million jobs". Maybe in
China, Romneybot...

> You surely fully understand that there are totally different
> classes of people? To say he doesn't relate <on a personal
> level> to you or I --- well shit.... you or I wouldn't relate
> to the average female, the average black male, the average
> asisan. Is there a guy running for prez, with any hope in hell,
> that is actually working for a living and making 50k a year or less?

Oh, come on. You remember your past being poor, as you're posted about
it numerous times. You're not poor anymore. Yet you can still relate
to those who are, because you were there once. You can empathize.
There's a big difference between that and someone who has lived their
life in the upper echelon entirely.

> Our records reflect VERY much on us. And the types of
> records at an Ivy League school say volumes more.

Well, I disagree. If those Ivy League records meant anything, would we
really have elected a mediocre student like Bush? FDR?

> <sigh>  Please then, rephrase it in YOUR words as to how
> they both held a license and now they don't. I await your
> reply.

It's pretty clearly spelled out at that link; they weren't going to be
practicing law, Michelle went on inactive status, Barry chose be put
on voluntarily retired status. The difference, as the article again
covered, is that "voluntarily surrendering" your law license means
you've given it up. Neither one did this; if they choose to practice
again, it's a simple matter to get going again.

> Going back and making up courses <especially those that
> would pile up after a 4 or 8 year period> is a major pain in
> the ass. Learning and complying with any new rules/regulations
> after a prolonged time -> likewise. He <or she> did not go thru
> the years, the money etc.. to say "we'll neither one practice law
> again"... I just don't see it. My opinion.

Well, if you're comfortable deciding what is and what is not a pain in
the ass for others, and if you're certain you can claim to know
exactly what the Obama's were thinking...have at it.

Lex Parsimoniae, 83. But enjoy your conspiracy theory.

> Bullshit... this is me and you talking smack back and forth
> over our president. I don't post ANY political stuff anywhere
> to speak of. Not on FB, not on newsgroups, an occasional
> rare comment aside. This is just you and I and a <very> few
> readers. You see, the thing is, that dems cannot argue most
> of what people like me throw at them. The 'big' stuff anyway.
> They can't deny still being in foreign countries, 15 tril, etc.
> You and I have beat those thiings back and forth many times.
> Then you make a post (or sliced... regardless) titled "So, birther?"
> or something about the 2nd amendment... then I shouldn't
> get into the conversation? then say I'm worried about transcripts
> and licenses? Irony much?

No one said you shouldn't jump into any conversation you wish to.
But...you claim not to be a birther. Why then would you feel not only
compelled to jump into a thread directed *at birthers*, but also offer
up a spirited defense for them? AND you then toss around several other
birther-embraced "theories" to boot.

> Not one of those things weighs heavy on my mind.

It seems you've given them more than

I remember early on in Bush II's run, a comment he had made as gov was
revived. Something along the lines of "Wicca is not a religion". Oh,
the pagans and heathens were in an uproar, worried that Bush was going
to introduce a bill that outlawed Wicca, etc. That was ridiculous
then, as are so many of the "theories" tossed out about Obama now.

> You can stop this becoming more and more of a corporate
> world.

We most certainly *could* stop it. But, alas, we have to many dummies/
apathetic citizens to get there (not to mention the pocket
politicians). Instead, we get a bunch of rubes buying cancer-laden
chicken sandwiches, believing that they're standing up for free speech
in doing so. Dummies, all of them.

> Corps will always play a role,

I have no problem with corps playing a role, or banks. I do have a
problem with them being puppet masters and seeing their roles mutated
into what they are today.

> I don't want them setting policy, I don't
> want to see them gain favoritism.

We're already there. Surely you see this.

> I've learned to live with gays, goths,
> Kardashians etc.. I suggest you get used to the corps. They'll
> long outlive both of us.

Wow, talk about a false equivalence. Let me know when gays, goths and
reality shows implode our economy and turn the country into a banana
republic, mmm-k?

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 4, 12:49 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems you've given them more than a moment's passing thought.

...is what I meant to type.

El Jefe

[AJ]

You said that ignorant shit, not me.

[AJ]

Dude, stick to protesting Chick-fil-A with the other fags and shut
up.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 4, 3:17 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> You said that ignorant shit, not me.

So how will Romneybot's failed business venture help him cure the
economy? You guys constantly wine about Solyndra...explain how Konarka
will play into all of this. Don't wait for 83 to post so you can hide
behind and him and cheer...be a man and answer for yourself.

El Jefe

[AJ]

On Aug 4, 5:07 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 3:17 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You said that ignorant shit, not me.
>
> So how will Romneybot's failed business venture help him cure the
> economy?

If he does what he says, then there will be less regulations and other
government BS involvement that puts a stranglehold on business and
businesses wanting to start up.

>You guys constantly wine about Solyndra...

Which was a huge failure from a huge failor of a leader.

>explain how Konarka
> will play into all of this. Don't wait for 83 to post so you can hide
> behind and him and cheer...be a man and answer for yourself.

Explain why you think Konarka is even a solution? AND while you're at
it, explain why you think it's sane to defend and support the worst
President of all time?

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 4, 3:31 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Dude, stick to protesting Chick-fil-A with the other fags and shut
> up.

Thanks for proving you can't "handel" my opinion, Deep Dish. Struck
nerves noted.

El Jefe

[AJ]

Thanks for proving you can't take a joke. And a damn good one at
that. Struck nerves noted.

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> Last I saw it was well over 80% of 'anti-Romney' ads that
>> dems were running. They ain't talking about his Mass. hc plan.
>> They ain't talking about what he's for or against. They're talking
>> about Bain and 'how many jobs went out' on his watch. They're
>> hammering nearly every single commercial at his financials,
>> one way or the other.
>
> And what is Romneybot talking about? All I see are him harping on the
> false "you didn't build that" meme. That's when he's not making a fool
> of himself on the world stage, anyway. He avoids taking questions,
> hence the "kiss my ass" hilarity we get from his staff.

I've seen him answer many questions. OTOH, there is nothing
to be gained by talking with reporters who are shouting loaded
questions at you. They ALL give the same stump speech, answer
the same questions, day after day. Romney isn't an ideal candidate
for the GOP. There wasn't one running <IMO>. And I suppose
they both put millions into negative ads simply because they
do tend to have an affect. It certainly seemed to work for
Romney when he ran negative ads in the primaries and it
seems <by most stories I've read> that the negative ads have
worked well for Obama.

>> Explain any way that you wish why such an accomplished
>> student would not show his records...
>
> "Doesn't matter. It's like the college records -- it's non-mandatory."

That is correct. But you can bet your ass if someone running for
office has a stellar record somewhere, they'll put it out there.
If Romney wasn't embarassed by paying a low tax rate, he'd
likely show his financials. There is something embarassing in
BOs college transcripts -- or HE'D have it out there. IMO.

> And as I already said, college grades mean little 30 years later. I
> don't care what grades Romneybot got. I don't care what grades Obama
> got. I care about what policies they stand for currently.

If we're simply going on public records of what either man
has achieved, Romney would be our next president. BO
has been an utter failure unless you're one of those that
think the hc bill and the death of OBL makes him a hero.

> I don't really care about Romneybot's tax returns either. But seeing
> as Obama has to placate every paste-eating moron out there by
> releasing everything they demand, I fail to see why Romneybot
> shouldn't be held to something of a similar standard. Explain any way
> you wish why such an "accomplished businessman" would not show his tax
> records?

Told ya already - if guessing <and that's all we can do> he prolly
paid a very low tax rate. What people may not take into consideration
is that even at a low rate, he's paid MANY millions into our tax system.
And the huge amount of people getting gov't aid are going to blister
him for it all the while cashing their gov't checks.

>> And he ain't running on his past success as a capitolist either.
>
> Are you even paying attention to what Romney says? His entire
> "campaign" is him touting his business experience as a way to fix the
> economy. He stated himself he'd "create 12 million jobs". Maybe in
> China, Romneybot...

He's running as a man who understands business in a time
where 'it's the economy stupid'. I suppose I should have said
he isn't flouting his financial success. Better?

>> You surely fully understand that there are totally different
>> classes of people? To say he doesn't relate <on a personal
>> level> to you or I --- well shit.... you or I wouldn't relate
>> to the average female, the average black male, the average
>> asisan. Is there a guy running for prez, with any hope in hell,
>> that is actually working for a living and making 50k a year or less?
>
> Oh, come on. You remember your past being poor, as you're posted about
> it numerous times. You're not poor anymore. Yet you can still relate
> to those who are, because you were there once. You can empathize.
> There's a big difference between that and someone who has lived their
> life in the upper echelon entirely.

So he needs to be taken down a notch because his father <extremely
poor> became a rich man? and he had a comfortable upbringing?
I have some money now -- but I can in no way relate to the rich
who have led an entirely different life than I have. Matter of fact,
I still live as if poor... a fairly modest home and decent car being
the exception. No frills here whatsoever. Our Friday night
dinner ritual runs us 25 bucks exactly. That's the most we ever
pay for a meal for two... our rare vacations being the exception.

>> Our records reflect VERY much on us. And the types of
>> records at an Ivy League school say volumes more.
>
> Well, I disagree. If those Ivy League records meant anything, would we
> really have elected a mediocre student like Bush? FDR?

They mean something when measuring the man. It's insight.
I've never claimed it to be anything more. And as far as
Obama being the intellectual many claim him to be -- I totally
don't see it. Not in his speech nor his actions. This is said after
having watched him speak hundreds of times. He's no dummy
and he is certainly informed - but that does not equate to
what I consider an intellectual.

>> <sigh> Please then, rephrase it in YOUR words as to how
>> they both held a license and now they don't. I await your
>> reply.
>
> It's pretty clearly spelled out at that link; they weren't going to be
> practicing law, Michelle went on inactive status, Barry chose be put
> on voluntarily retired status. The difference, as the article again
> covered, is that "voluntarily surrendering" your law license means
> you've given it up. Neither one did this; if they choose to practice
> again, it's a simple matter to get going again.

1) They both <voluntarily> let their license go. Therefore
my wording was correct.

2) It is NOT a simple thing to go back years later.
I'll almost guarantee you neither one picks up as a lawyer again.

>> Going back and making up courses <especially those that
>> would pile up after a 4 or 8 year period> is a major pain in
>> the ass. Learning and complying with any new rules/regulations
>> after a prolonged time -> likewise. He <or she> did not go thru
>> the years, the money etc.. to say "we'll neither one practice law
>> again"... I just don't see it. My opinion.
>
> Well, if you're comfortable deciding what is and what is not a pain in
> the ass for others, and if you're certain you can claim to know
> exactly what the Obama's were thinking...have at it.
>
> Lex Parsimoniae, 83. But enjoy your conspiracy theory.

I know what others have gone thru in re-instating a license
after a prolonged period. I'd be hard pressed to go back
and write a program in Cobol or Fortran or to even do
much above elementary math.

>> Bullshit... this is me and you talking smack back and forth
>> over our president. I don't post ANY political stuff anywhere
>> to speak of. Not on FB, not on newsgroups, an occasional
>> rare comment aside. This is just you and I and a <very> few
>> readers. You see, the thing is, that dems cannot argue most
>> of what people like me throw at them. The 'big' stuff anyway.
>> They can't deny still being in foreign countries, 15 tril, etc.
>> You and I have beat those thiings back and forth many times.
>> Then you make a post (or sliced... regardless) titled "So, birther?"
>> or something about the 2nd amendment... then I shouldn't
>> get into the conversation? then say I'm worried about transcripts
>> and licenses? Irony much?
>
> No one said you shouldn't jump into any conversation you wish to.

I'm aware of that.. and aware I'm likely the one you're looking
to for a response. My main point was that anything similar to
to original subject is gonna come up. If I say Obama said/did
this, it isn't unexpected that your reply would be 'well, Bush
said/did that'. Straying from 'birthers' to transcripts and licenses
isn't a far reach.

> But...you claim not to be a birther. Why then would you feel not only
> compelled to jump into a thread directed *at birthers*, but also offer
> up a spirited defense for them? AND you then toss around several other
> birther-embraced "theories" to boot.

Because I like to give you what you want.

Who did you think- who else replies- what others have
jumped into these many threads you've started. It's
what we do. Or did you just start a 'birthers' thread to
jab at AJ for a reply? Surely you didn't think Sharon
would jump in with some deep insight. Maybe steve?
Lab or TV or DB doesn't jump into our bitchin'. Ain't
that just what we do?

>> Not one of those things weighs heavy on my mind.
>
> It seems you've given them more than

In the five minutes it takes to reply to you maybe.
Obama being a socialist, a kenyan, a <whatever>
is nothing you or I think about in the normal course
of our day. Do you walk the streets with Romney on
your mind? Does the thought of Michelle Bachmann
weigh you down daily?

> I remember early on in Bush II's run, a comment he had made as gov was
> revived. Something along the lines of "Wicca is not a religion". Oh,
> the pagans and heathens were in an uproar, worried that Bush was going
> to introduce a bill that outlawed Wicca, etc. That was ridiculous
> then, as are so many of the "theories" tossed out about Obama now.

Every president has their stupid comments, their
ignorant moments. Just as do we all.

>> You can stop this becoming more and more of a corporate
>> world.
>
> We most certainly *could* stop it. But, alas, we have to many dummies/
> apathetic citizens to get there (not to mention the pocket
> politicians). Instead, we get a bunch of rubes buying cancer-laden
> chicken sandwiches, believing that they're standing up for free speech
> in doing so. Dummies, all of them.

The same majority of dummies who elect our presidents.
Bush and Obama. Take your pick.

>> Corps will always play a role,
>
> I have no problem with corps playing a role, or banks. I do have a
> problem with them being puppet masters and seeing their roles mutated
> into what they are today.

If you don't think that money controls virtually
everything you're in for a rude awakening. But
that's 'okay' because I'll not let it bother me as long
as a dedicated and hard working man or woman
can still succeed. Wal-Mart or Microsoft has never
once had their jackboot on my throat. I'll throw
some blame on BP like incidents, but I don't go
around cussin' corporations. I can't say the same
for the mentality of congress or the chick beside me
texting or putting on makeup.

>> I don't want them setting policy, I don't
>> want to see them gain favoritism.
>
> We're already there. Surely you see this.

I know exactly where we stand in the grand scheme
of things. We'll always have our 'overlords' and you
and I are likely destined to be nothing more than a
'common man'. That's okay tho. It's actually what
most people seek to be. We're better off than most of
the world. We'll never be power players.

>> I've learned to live with gays, goths,
>> Kardashians etc.. I suggest you get used to the corps. They'll
>> long outlive both of us.
>
> Wow, talk about a false equivalence. Let me know when gays, goths and
> reality shows implode our economy and turn the country into a banana
> republic, mmm-k?

No false equivalence. Our society has become so dumbed down
from the above <and similar> that we have gotten what we
likely deserve. My main point was to say that there is a lot of
shit that EVERY person lives with that doesn't suit their wants
or needs. You don't like corps, the tea party and unlimited
PAC money. I don't like moochers, entitlements and a host of
social programs/attitudes... it's a push. I've learned to live with
what the world is... what it's become. I suggest you do the same.
OWS was a failure - corporate greed, along with personal greed,
will never go away.

[lab~rat >:-)]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT), El Jefe
<jefepickss...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 29, 3:35�pm, FVH <jarjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Obama's black and Romney's white. Of course they won't admit it, but
>> that's the only reason the HOOD RATS give Romney a pass and
>> irrationally question Obama's background.
>
>It's total hypocrisy. I don't think Romney has done anything illegal
>tax-wise, but my guess is that he knows if people see the loopholes he
>takes advantage of, it'll derail his run. Not that he isn't already
>doing a fine job of making that happen already. I think he's
>particularly sensitive about 2009 because he likely paid no taxes --
>again, nothing illegal, but not something that will serve to make him
>look good. I also think the whole "was he/wasn't he CEO of Bain for 3
>years" thing is a part of it.
>
>El Jefe
>

Whatever keeps someone safe from being beaten by Obama sounds good.
Maybe some good old fashioned ACORN style voter fraud. I say that as
someone who was better off before the Democrats started destroying the
economy in 2007 than I am now.

Obviously, neither Romney nor Obama can control what happens in the
economy, it's only a matter of perception. If you have someone up
there saying they are running on taking money from people to somehow
make it fair, and that people are reliant on the government for their
success, then the more intelligent portion of the US is going to
respond accordingly.

What Romney should do is campaign on the fact that people aren't
successful BECAUSE of government, they are successful IN SPITE of
government...

[lab~rat >:-)]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:53:10 -0700 (PDT), El Jefe
<jefepickss...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There are hundreds of Congresscritters *from both parties* that are
>sketchy about this. Just can't resist bringing up that Pelosi hatred,
>can ya?

Yeah, a more pointed critter would be from the Senate, one that
criticizes Romney, one that hasn't released his, one that is from your
state...

[lab~rat >:-)]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:44:24 -0700 (PDT), FVH <jarj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You calling someone an idiot is like you calling someone fat and/or
>gay.

Wow, all three of those statements must have struck a nerve, Sharon...

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 5, 5:31 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> I've seen him answer many questions.

You see him respond. You don't see him answer. Hell, he's not ever
sure what position he's taken on any given matter. "I stand by what I
said, whatever it was"....

> That is correct. But you can bet your ass if someone running for
> office has a stellar record somewhere, they'll put it out there.
> If Romney wasn't embarassed by paying a low tax rate, he'd
> likely show his financials. There is something embarassing in
> BOs college transcripts -- or HE'D have it out there. IMO.

We already know Romney pays a low tax rate. I think he likely paid no
taxes in 2009 and doesn't want that out there.

> If we're simply going on public records of what either man
> has achieved, Romney would be our next president.

Your criteria is laughable, but not unexpected. The last businessman
who hold the office of pres was Herbert Hoover. Look how that turned
out. Does W count as a businessman as well? Again, look how that
turned out.

I'm not going to blame either man solely for what happened,
obviously...but they do show that being a businessman gives no
advantage whatsoever to being a president nor having a positive impact
on an economy.

> Told ya already - if guessing <and that's all we can do> he prolly
> paid a very low tax rate. What people may not take into consideration
> is that even at a low rate, he's paid MANY millions into our tax system.

Again, people know this. Color me impressed that he paid the same tax
rate as a secretary. And I'm sure he used no loopholes to do that, as
the tax system is certainly not rigged in his favor. /sarcasm

> And the huge amount of people getting gov't aid are going to blister
> him for it all the while cashing their gov't checks.

Ah, the welfare queen/jealous-of-the-rich card. *yawn*

> He's running as a man who understands business in a time
> where 'it's the economy stupid'. I suppose I should have said
> he isn't flouting his financial success. Better?

What in Romney's "understanding" do you think would translate into him
being able to back up his "I'll create 12 million jobs" claim?
Knowing, of course, that presidents aren't personally creating jobs?
His attempt at a business failed, his "success" was the result of
producing/inventing nothing....

> So he needs to be taken down a notch because his father <extremely
> poor> became a rich man? and he had a comfortable upbringing?

If you consider his living in a bubble being taken down a notch. I
don't. It's just acknowledging reality.

> I have some money now -- but I can in no way relate to the rich
> who have led an entirely different life than I have.

And this is essentially what I'm saying re: Romney, just in reverse.

This goes to the overall bigger picture of our "representatives" on a
whole not truly representing us, I suppose. But give me someone who
started small and became big instead of a born-on-third person any
day.

> They mean something when measuring the man. It's insight.
> I've never claimed it to be anything more. And as far as
> Obama being the intellectual many claim him to be -- I totally
> don't see it. Not in his speech nor his actions. This is said after
> having watched him speak hundreds of times. He's no dummy
> and he is certainly informed - but that does not equate to
> what I consider an intellectual.

Well, you think Newt Gingrich is an intellectual. That puts your view
of intellectualism in serious doubt. =P

I see a guy like Hitch as an intellectual. Obama is not a Hitch; he's
a smart guy, who also had the benefit of a predecessor that made a bag
of hair look intelligent. That is a big part of why you seem him
painted as an intellectual, I think.

> 1) They both <voluntarily> let their license go. Therefore
> my wording was correct.

*sigh* "Voluntarily surrendering" has a specific meaning when it comes
to law licenses. There's a reason why the chain email you got that
theory from made use of the term. It certainly sounds more dubious
than "They're on inactive status". Your wording was NOT correct.

> 2) It is NOT a simple thing to go back years later.

I mentioned this topic to a few lawyers I know. They all agreed that
it was an easy thing to get going again should you choose to go
inactive for awhile.

I'll be sure to let them know that you told me they're wrong. I'm sure
they'll be convinced.

> I'll almost guarantee you neither one picks up as a lawyer again.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't go back either. Maybe Michelle
would. Obama I would see doing what the rest do -- writing books,
giving paid speeches and such.

> I know what others have gone thru in re-instating a license
> after a prolonged period.

A license, or a law license specifically?

> I'd be hard pressed to go back
> and write a program in Cobol or Fortran or to even do
> much above elementary math.

Well, that's your personal malfunction. You think that just because
you'd have difficulty going back to an old practice everyone else
would too?

> I'm aware of that.. and aware I'm likely the one you're looking
> to for a response. My main point was that anything similar to
> to original subject is gonna come up.

As I've said before, I'm aware that you'll *likely* respond to a
political thread I make. That doesn't mean that every one I make is
some kind of "bait" for you. If I have something specific for you,
I'll indicate it as such. That's why I specifically aimed this at the
birthers in here. You've mentioned that you don't question Obama's BC,
so I had no reason to think you'd have much interest.

> If I say Obama said/did
> this, it isn't unexpected that your reply would be 'well, Bush
> said/did that'. Straying from 'birthers' to transcripts and licenses
> isn't a far reach.

I mention Bush if it's relevant to do so. When talking about the
recession and economic effects of his terms, for example, it certainly
is. When observing how things righties loved from 2001-2008 suddenly
became bad on 1/20/2009, it certainly is.

Clinton's name was routinely brought up in here for years after 9/11
-- "he didn't do enough to get Bin Laden". I find it humorous that
this was OK then, but we dare not mention Bush's name now.

> Because I like to give you what you want.

> Who did you think- who else replies- what others have
> jumped into these many threads you've started. It's
> what we do. Or did you just start a 'birthers' thread to
> jab at AJ for a reply?

AJ is the King Birther here, so I anticipated a typically dumb and
evasive response from him. I did *not* expect that you'd rush in to
defend Romney's decision by throwing other birther-related theories
around.

In hindsight, I suppose I should have.

> Surely you didn't think Sharon
> would jump in with some deep insight. Maybe steve?
> Lab or TV or DB doesn't jump into our bitchin'. Ain't
> that just what we do?

Simply not true. You, myself, AJ, FVH are typically the ones who post
the most in these threads. But depending on how long they go on, we
might see steve, TV, SK, sliced, lab, etc. join in. You want to
discuss the "quality" of any of those posts? Have at it, but
understand that as long as you continue to give AJ a pass for his many
stupid and ignorant comments, your opinion doesn't have much weight.

I think you see yourself as being singularly important in my eyes.
Trust me, you aren't. I do you the courtesy of replying to your posts
for as long as I can tolerate it, knowing full well that it's futile.

It's not a highlight of my day or anything. When I'm posting in here,
I'm also doing other things on the comp. This place serves as a
distraction, nothing more.

> In the five minutes it takes to reply to you maybe.
> Obama being a socialist, a kenyan, a <whatever>
> is nothing you or I think about in the normal course
> of our day. Do you walk the streets with Romney on
> your mind? Does the thought of Michelle Bachmann
> weigh you down daily?

The difference is that I don't give conspiracy theories/possible-but-
very-unlikely scenarios any effort whatsoever. My criticisms of
politicians center on dumb things they've done or said. Or haven't
done/said, depending. The Clinton Body Count? 9/11 a Bush admin coup?
Bush the dictator? Obama the Socialist/Communist/Muslim/Kenyan
Usurper? All nonsense. Question everything, yes. But stop when the
questions are proven to be unsubstantiated, or you just look like a
lunatic.

You may not spend a whole lot of time on the Obama theories in
general, but your spirited defenses of those who do suggests you buy
into it than you let on. I had never even heard of the law license
"theory" until you brought it up.

Or do you just do that because it gives you the chance to argue with
me, sliced, etc? A slight bit of trolling, perhaps?

> If you don't think that money controls virtually
> everything you're in for a rude awakening.

I'm well aware of money's power. That certainly doesn't mean the
country should just spread its legs and "enjoy it" as that power is
abused.

> But that's 'okay' because I'll not let it bother me as long
> as a dedicated and hard working man or woman
> can still succeed. Wal-Mart or Microsoft has never
> once had their jackboot on my throat. I'll throw
> some blame on BP like incidents, but I don't go
> around cussin' corporations. I can't say the same
> for the mentality of congress or the chick beside me
> texting or putting on makeup.

At this rate, how much do you really think a hard worker can succeed?
Is holding down 2-3 shitty-paying, part time jobs success? Being
saddled with outrageous tuition debt (because we *must* go to college
to "succeed" -- aka, work at Walmart full instead of part time) before
you even get started? And understand, I don't think tuition debt is a
bad thing in and of itself, but the cost of this "education" outweighs
the value. I won't even get started on the for-profit colleges...

Kids today are scared about what their future holds, and I don't blame
them. More and more the odds are stacked against them. Corporations
have a huge part in this, along with their pocket politicians who rant
about privatizing everything they can. I'll say it again: this country
is not a financial statement. There is no bottom line. You cannot "run
it like a business" and still call it America.

Greece, Ireland, etc. went the austerity route. All it got them was
higher unemployment. Doesn't work.

> I know exactly where we stand in the grand scheme
> of things. We'll always have our 'overlords' and you
> and I are likely destined to be nothing more than a
> 'common man'. That's okay tho. It's actually what
> most people seek to be. We're better off than most of
> the world. We'll never be power players.

Very submissive. I'm not suggesting that we must all strive to be
kings, but we certainly don't have to settle for being the court
jesters.

> No false equivalence.

MAJOR false equivalence.

> Our society has become so dumbed down
> from the above <and similar> that we have gotten what we
> likely deserve.

?? What happened, did a gay goth force you to watch reality TV or
somethin'?

I don't think reality shows have dumbed us down. The fact that they
found an audience at all suggests that there were already a lot of
dummies out there to begin with. I fail to see how goths and gays have
dumbed us down either...being wired differently than you makes the
country dumb? Sounds like bigotry to me. Wearing makeup and a certain
kind of clothing makes the country dumb? Kiss was dumbing down the
country in the 70s, I guess. Hell, the Founding Fathers wore makeup
and powdered fucking wigs. Y U make us so dum, Tommy J?

I went to a goth band concert once. Having a relatively clean-cut look
at the time, I didn't know what to expect. Figured I'd stick out in a
major way, hear comments, etc. The audience consisted of some of the
nicest people I've been around at a show. The same was true of the
bikers at a Thorogood show. I dunno, maybe you've just had the
misfortune of dealing only with goths and gays who were raging
assholes?

What HAS dumbed us down is our corporate-owned media that suggests
everyone can bring their own set of facts to the table, and they must
all be taken seriously. Everything is now "debatable".

"Next on Fox News - some believe the sun rises in the west. Are they
right? We Report.You Decide."

And yes, MSNBC, ABC, CNN are bad as well. Not nearly as bad as Fox.
But bad indeed.

> My main point was to say that there is a lot of
> shit that EVERY person lives with that doesn't suit their wants
> or needs. You don't like corps, the tea party and unlimited
> PAC money. I don't like moochers, entitlements and a host of
> social programs/attitudes... it's a push.

There's a big difference between the examples above and being butthurt
over gays (no pun intended) and goths. And just to clarify -- it's not
that I dislike corps. What I dislike is the overwhelming influence and
power they have. The entire mainstream media owned by, what 2, 3
conglomerates? You don't see any problem with that? Instead of actual
journalism, we get Taco Bell's "head chef" and the Barbie Doll
"journalists" shilling for their "gourmet" (*snort*) menu. It's a
joke.

And you're taking a mortgage deduction...so you don't dislike those
gov programs as much as you claim to.

> I've learned to live with
> what the world is... what it's become. I suggest you do the same.

How defeatist of you.

> OWS was a failure - corporate greed, along with personal greed,
> will never go away.

I suppose if you were looking upon OWS as the Teabagger's
doppelganger, you might see it as a failure. But they're still at
work, in different guises. Our "liberal" media lost interest in them
long ago, of course, so you won't hear about it.

And I don't think the idea was to eliminate greed. That's, ya know,
folly.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 5, 12:50 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
> I say that as
> someone who was better off before the Democrats started destroying the
> economy in 2007 than I am now.

Right, so....what exactly is it that those dems did that personally
impacted you in such a negative way? Can you point out some specific
legislation?

> Obviously, neither Romney nor Obama can control what happens in the
> economy, it's only a matter of perception.  If you have someone up
> there saying they are running on taking money from people to somehow
> make it fair, and that people are reliant on the government for their
> success, then the more intelligent portion of the US is going to
> respond accordingly.

Ah, the "you didn't build that" meme. Of course, because every
business is an island...

> What Romney should do is campaign on the fact that people aren't
> successful BECAUSE of government, they are successful IN SPITE of
> government...

And yet he wants to become a part of that government...to help
businesses. And of course, he's never used any gov loopholes to line
is pockets.

Great idea...

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 5, 12:51 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:

> Yeah, a more pointed critter would be from the Senate, one that
> criticizes Romney, one that hasn't released his, one that is from your
> state...

You'll get no admiration of Reid from me. Nevadans have suffered
political fools in general for far too long.

How's the voter suppression in your state going?

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> I've seen him answer many questions.
>
> You see him respond. You don't see him answer. Hell, he's not ever
> sure what position he's taken on any given matter. "I stand by what I
> said, whatever it was"....

I've seen him in fairly candid interviews.

Have you ever watched them do the interview process
for a supreme court position? They answer nothing. At
best they give generic responses and carefully worded
non-answers.

It's no different when they ask Obama how to fix
something. They ALL dodge most questions.

>> That is correct. But you can bet your ass if someone running for
>> office has a stellar record somewhere, they'll put it out there.
>> If Romney wasn't embarassed by paying a low tax rate, he'd
>> likely show his financials. There is something embarassing in
>> BOs college transcripts -- or HE'D have it out there. IMO.
>
> We already know Romney pays a low tax rate. I think he likely paid no
> taxes in 2009 and doesn't want that out there.

He says otherwise. <Again> my wife is a tax specialist.
It is the ONLY thing she does. No rich person she has
ever worked for gets away from taxes. The four owners
at her previous job EACH wrote checks for millions of
dollars a year. And yet, there's MILLIONS of people that
pay not ONE single dollar.

>> If we're simply going on public records of what either man
>> has achieved, Romney would be our next president.
>
> Your criteria is laughable, but not unexpected. The last businessman
> who hold the office of pres was Herbert Hoover. Look how that turned
> out. Does W count as a businessman as well? Again, look how that
> turned out.

My criteria is based on what we know of the two men.
We also know quite a bit about Obama at this point -
at least as to how he operates and what he actually
does as president. He is a disgrace and a failure. The
fact this doesn't seem to bother dems just blows me
away. Who in hell runs their finances the way this
government does? It's a proven formula for failure.
Should we do a search for cities going bankrupt? For
countries?

> I'm not going to blame either man solely for what happened,
> obviously...but they do show that being a businessman gives no
> advantage whatsoever to being a president nor having a positive impact
> on an economy.

Over the last <almost> 4 years it is obvious that business owners
are totally flustered by Obama and the direction he is taking
this country. I see it, read it, hear it at the time. Health care
and taxes are killing this country. HC scares the shit out of
these owners. Go ahead and deny it or try to work around it
but the facts are the facts... thousands trying to duck the hc
bill with special exemptions. Rates still rising. Taxes take so
much of our money that there is little hope of new hires.
People with 'modest money' are holding on to it. They will
not hire, they will not expand.

>> Told ya already - if guessing <and that's all we can do> he prolly
>> paid a very low tax rate. What people may not take into consideration
>> is that even at a low rate, he's paid MANY millions into our tax
>> system.
>
> Again, people know this. Color me impressed that he paid the same tax
> rate as a secretary. And I'm sure he used no loopholes to do that, as
> the tax system is certainly not rigged in his favor. /sarcasm

I presume he follows the same rules as Al Gore or George
Soros. How many people <like you or I> does it take to
match the few million a year someone like Romney pays?
Half the country pays nothing. Romney pays millions
a year <all but guaranteed> and not only that, signs
checks for many others. Any response of "Well, percentage
wise..." can be debated endlessly. Change the fucking
tax system and treat everyone equally.

>> And the huge amount of people getting gov't aid are going to blister
>> him for it all the while cashing their gov't checks.
>
> Ah, the welfare queen/jealous-of-the-rich card. *yawn*

You can deny, but you can't change the facts.
Go on and tell me how GE has a 3 to 4 billion tax
credit over the next ten years. I'll reply with how
welfare alone costs us 80 billion a year. And that
is just foodstamps and certain assistance, not taking
into account the varius other types of programs
people are draining daily. Do you REALLY believe
half of all disability payments <which are for mental
reasons now> is valid? Tax loopholes for the rich
corporations isn't a fraction of what the populace
are scamming every year. We beat this endlessly
and I want them both stopped. The sooner the better.

>> He's running as a man who understands business in a time
>> where 'it's the economy stupid'. I suppose I should have said
>> he isn't flouting his financial success. Better?
>
> What in Romney's "understanding" do you think would translate into him
> being able to back up his "I'll create 12 million jobs" claim?
> Knowing, of course, that presidents aren't personally creating jobs?
> His attempt at a business failed, his "success" was the result of
> producing/inventing nothing....

Any fuckingbody could become president, slash gov't in half,
repeal half of the regulations and jobs would come back
overnight. We <for hundredth time> are the worst country
in the world to try and open a/do business in. Fact.

>> So he needs to be taken down a notch because his father <extremely
>> poor> became a rich man? and he had a comfortable upbringing?
>
> If you consider his living in a bubble being taken down a notch. I
> don't. It's just acknowledging reality.

You seem to want to deny a whole lot of reality.
You can't name a president, a VP, or anyone running
for president that isn't rich. At least no one with a chance.
Fuckin' Roseanne Barr is rich. Who do you think was
likely taught better morals, better "life lessons"... the
son of George Romney - dirt-ass poor man who made
it rich, donated 25% of his income to church and charity,
reknown for his mission work, his work for the poor, his
opposing Viet Nam, his dedication to civil rights... do
you REALLY believe he raised Mitt like some spoiled
ass Kennedy or George Bush Jr? You want to compare
the life of "upbringing"? Obama hadda mom that fucked
socialists, done a little porn for the camera, chunked her
kid away to her parents and chased yet another socialist?
She met her first husband in a Russian class (BO Sr.)... we
know what a winner he was -- radical, whoremonger, married
to 2 or 3 women at once, killed a man while drunk, and died
with a hint of being murdered.

While daddy Soetoro wasn't <doesn't seem> quite the radical
momma found reason to dump him as well. Yeah, let's compare
the upbringing and parents of Romeny vs Obama. Unreal.

>> I have some money now -- but I can in no way relate to the rich
>> who have led an entirely different life than I have.
>
> And this is essentially what I'm saying re: Romney, just in reverse.
>
> This goes to the overall bigger picture of our "representatives" on a
> whole not truly representing us, I suppose. But give me someone who
> started small and became big instead of a born-on-third person any
> day.

You're generalizing. You cannot honestly say that Romney
<or any other rich person> doesn't have values, common
sense, or a grasp of what others go thru. Specualtion on
your part - at best.

>> They mean something when measuring the man. It's insight.
>> I've never claimed it to be anything more. And as far as
>> Obama being the intellectual many claim him to be -- I totally
>> don't see it. Not in his speech nor his actions. This is said after
>> having watched him speak hundreds of times. He's no dummy
>> and he is certainly informed - but that does not equate to
>> what I consider an intellectual.
>
> Well, you think Newt Gingrich is an intellectual. That puts your view
> of intellectualism in serious doubt. =P

No worse than anyone who would constantly re-elect
Ted Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Rangel or a Barney Frank.
There was no one on either side of those prez debates
that had more knowlege than Gingrich. At least regarding
the workings of government.

> I see a guy like Hitch as an intellectual. Obama is not a Hitch; he's
> a smart guy, who also had the benefit of a predecessor that made a bag
> of hair look intelligent. That is a big part of why you seem him
> painted as an intellectual, I think.

>> 1) They both <voluntarily> let their license go. Therefore
>> my wording was correct.
>
> *sigh* "Voluntarily surrendering" has a specific meaning when it comes
> to law licenses. There's a reason why the chain email you got that
> theory from made use of the term. It certainly sounds more dubious
> than "They're on inactive status". Your wording was NOT correct.

I have never gotten nor read an email regarding their law
licenses. And you still don't word it to mean anything different
than what I did.

>> 2) It is NOT a simple thing to go back years later.
>
> I mentioned this topic to a few lawyers I know. They all agreed that
> it was an easy thing to get going again should you choose to go
> inactive for awhile.
>
> I'll be sure to let them know that you told me they're wrong. I'm sure
> they'll be convinced.

And I know of cases that say otherwise. Have those same lawyers
you spoke with ever given up theirs?

>> I'll almost guarantee you neither one picks up as a lawyer again.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if they don't go back either. Maybe Michelle
> would. Obama I would see doing what the rest do -- writing books,
> giving paid speeches and such.
>
>> I know what others have gone thru in re-instating a license
>> after a prolonged period.
>
> A license, or a law license specifically?

I've had a few lawyer friends over the years, known many
nurses and am familiar with what it takes in the field of
accountants/CPAs. I do not personally, out of the 3 or
4 lawyers I know/known, that have given up their license.

>> I'd be hard pressed to go back
>> and write a program in Cobol or Fortran or to even do
>> much above elementary math.
>
> Well, that's your personal malfunction. You think that just because
> you'd have difficulty going back to an old practice everyone else
> would too?

Yes, it's a proven fact. Use it or lose it.

>> I'm aware of that.. and aware I'm likely the one you're looking
>> to for a response. My main point was that anything similar to
>> to original subject is gonna come up.
>
> As I've said before, I'm aware that you'll *likely* respond to a
> political thread I make. That doesn't mean that every one I make is
> some kind of "bait" for you.

Never implied that.

> If I have something specific for you,
> I'll indicate it as such. That's why I specifically aimed this at the
> birthers in here. You've mentioned that you don't question Obama's BC,
> so I had no reason to think you'd have much interest.

I call bullshit.
You mighta labeled your post as such but the immediate
subject of your post was Romney.

>> If I say Obama said/did
>> this, it isn't unexpected that your reply would be 'well, Bush
>> said/did that'. Straying from 'birthers' to transcripts and licenses
>> isn't a far reach.
>
> I mention Bush if it's relevant to do so. When talking about the
> recession and economic effects of his terms, for example, it certainly
> is. When observing how things righties loved from 2001-2008 suddenly
> became bad on 1/20/2009, it certainly is.
>
> Clinton's name was routinely brought up in here for years after 9/11
> -- "he didn't do enough to get Bin Laden". I find it humorous that
> this was OK then, but we dare not mention Bush's name now.

We mention any name we choose. None of them matter now.

>> Because I like to give you what you want.
>
>> Who did you think- who else replies- what others have
>> jumped into these many threads you've started. It's
>> what we do. Or did you just start a 'birthers' thread to
>> jab at AJ for a reply?
>
> AJ is the King Birther here, so I anticipated a typically dumb and
> evasive response from him. I did *not* expect that you'd rush in to
> defend Romney's decision by throwing other birther-related theories
> around.
>
> In hindsight, I suppose I should have.

You made an open 'attack' towards Romney. Did you not
want any response/debate? The 'birther' thing is a red
herring and had no relationship to the subject of your post.

>> Surely you didn't think Sharon
>> would jump in with some deep insight. Maybe steve?
>> Lab or TV or DB doesn't jump into our bitchin'. Ain't
>> that just what we do?
>
> Simply not true. You, myself, AJ, FVH are typically the ones who post
> the most in these threads. But depending on how long they go on, we
> might see steve, TV, SK, sliced, lab, etc. join in. You want to
> discuss the "quality" of any of those posts? Have at it, but
> understand that as long as you continue to give AJ a pass for his many
> stupid and ignorant comments, your opinion doesn't have much weight.
>
> I think you see yourself as being singularly important in my eyes.
> Trust me, you aren't. I do you the courtesy of replying to your posts
> for as long as I can tolerate it, knowing full well that it's futile.

steve adds nothing to our political rants. On occasion I piss
sliced off enough to make a rant, he almost never makes
a reply to you otherwise. Sharon is the queen of 'neurtral'.
It never takes a hard stance... it's was always "well, he ain't
our best but he's okay". Dodgy bullshit. AJ and you have
become quite the item, so we'll give you that one.

> It's not a highlight of my day or anything. When I'm posting in here,
> I'm also doing other things on the comp. This place serves as a
> distraction, nothing more.
>
>> In the five minutes it takes to reply to you maybe.
>> Obama being a socialist, a kenyan, a <whatever>
>> is nothing you or I think about in the normal course
>> of our day. Do you walk the streets with Romney on
>> your mind? Does the thought of Michelle Bachmann
>> weigh you down daily?
>
> The difference is that I don't give conspiracy theories/possible-but-
> very-unlikely scenarios any effort whatsoever. My criticisms of
> politicians center on dumb things they've done or said. Or haven't
> done/said, depending. The Clinton Body Count? 9/11 a Bush admin coup?
> Bush the dictator? Obama the Socialist/Communist/Muslim/Kenyan
> Usurper? All nonsense. Question everything, yes. But stop when the
> questions are proven to be unsubstantiated, or you just look like a
> lunatic.

Well fuck.. if we can't speculate let's just go for the facts/reality
then. Obama said we'd have a reduced budget, lower unemployment,
he'd clear out Gitmo and if he couldn't get it done in his first term he
didn't deserve a second. He's thrown more money at the poor than
any president ever -- it's only gotten worse. He's put us on the edge
of economic disaster and created another government fiasco in hc.
Argue any of that shit that you wish.

> You may not spend a whole lot of time on the Obama theories in
> general, but your spirited defenses of those who do suggests you buy
> into it than you let on. I had never even heard of the law license
> "theory" until you brought it up.

Then why the hell you blaming it on emails? There is a REASON
when someone does something of importance. A reason for
his college records and a reason with the law licenses. Neither
is a decision of McDs vs Burger King.

> Or do you just do that because it gives you the chance to argue with
> me, sliced, etc? A slight bit of trolling, perhaps?

That may be true if it was me making the posts. Idon't
call out sliced and I only respond.

>> If you don't think that money controls virtually
>> everything you're in for a rude awakening.
>
> I'm well aware of money's power. That certainly doesn't mean the
> country should just spread its legs and "enjoy it" as that power is
> abused.

And it doesn't mean that it will ever cease. Like any other
'given', you learn to roll with it. We have thousands of laws
that apply to everything from keeping the environment
clean to the monopoly laws. I can live with big corps as
long as our lawmakers make them play by the rules.
Who makes those rules and who enforces them <or not>
is beyond my scope. I can only bitch about it.

>> But that's 'okay' because I'll not let it bother me as long
>> as a dedicated and hard working man or woman
>> can still succeed. Wal-Mart or Microsoft has never
>> once had their jackboot on my throat. I'll throw
>> some blame on BP like incidents, but I don't go
>> around cussin' corporations. I can't say the same
>> for the mentality of congress or the chick beside me
>> texting or putting on makeup.
>
> At this rate, how much do you really think a hard worker can succeed?
> Is holding down 2-3 shitty-paying, part time jobs success? Being
> saddled with outrageous tuition debt (because we *must* go to college
> to "succeed" -- aka, work at Walmart full instead of part time) before
> you even get started? And understand, I don't think tuition debt is a
> bad thing in and of itself, but the cost of this "education" outweighs
> the value. I won't even get started on the for-profit colleges...

Colleges are a large problem. They've priced their way up
over 700% according to something I heard recently. And that
is only over the last couple decades. Regardless, not everyone
is meant for college, not half of the graduates come out 'smart'.
Any and every person I know with a 'solid' degree has a pretty
good job. College grads as a whole have about a 4% unemploy
rate. Most of those are probably in the liberal arts or social
sciences. I don't know a single unemployed 'professional'.
Many, like my wife, may be working much longer or harder,
or maybe settling for less money. But they are gainfully employed.

> Kids today are scared about what their future holds, and I don't blame
> them. More and more the odds are stacked against them. Corporations
> have a huge part in this, along with their pocket politicians who rant
> about privatizing everything they can. I'll say it again: this country
> is not a financial statement. There is no bottom line. You cannot "run
> it like a business" and still call it America.

Kids today are by and large --> stupid. No sense at all
of what it takes to pay the bills. No work ethic at all.
And I'm not speaking of my workers, but rather the
accountants and other white collar workers.

> Greece, Ireland, etc. went the austerity route. All it got them was
> higher unemployment. Doesn't work.

Bullshit.. they went the "work 20 years for 30 hours
a week and we'll pay you pensions for the next 30
years" route. Check out the work ethic in Germany
or China vs that of a Greece or Spain.

>> I know exactly where we stand in the grand scheme
>> of things. We'll always have our 'overlords' and you
>> and I are likely destined to be nothing more than a
>> 'common man'. That's okay tho. It's actually what
>> most people seek to be. We're better off than most of
>> the world. We'll never be power players.
>
> Very submissive. I'm not suggesting that we must all strive to be
> kings, but we certainly don't have to settle for being the court
> jesters.
>
>> No false equivalence.
>
> MAJOR false equivalence.
>
>> Our society has become so dumbed down
>> from the above <and similar> that we have gotten what we
>> likely deserve.
>
> ?? What happened, did a gay goth force you to watch reality TV or
> somethin'?

What 'succeeds' on tv is a reflection on what we've become.
Over 65 years of age? you're twice as likely to vote conservative.
Under 30? you're far more likely to vote Obama. Now -- who do
you think is keeping the Kardashians on tv? While there isn't a
direct correlation there is indeed a tie.

> I don't think reality shows have dumbed us down. The fact that they
> found an audience at all suggests that there were already a lot of
> dummies out there to begin with. I fail to see how goths and gays have
> dumbed us down either...being wired differently than you makes the
> country dumb? Sounds like bigotry to me. Wearing makeup and a certain
> kind of clothing makes the country dumb? Kiss was dumbing down the
> country in the 70s, I guess. Hell, the Founding Fathers wore makeup
> and powdered fucking wigs. Y U make us so dum, Tommy J?

I don't think the wigs of our forefathers can be related to todays
tongue rings. And yes, Kiss was part of the broad picture. Music,
tv, movies... all play a part. Anyone on tv is an instant celebrity.
We don't know shit about the constitution anymore, but we sure
as hell know who Paris Hilton is.

> I went to a goth band concert once. Having a relatively clean-cut look
> at the time, I didn't know what to expect. Figured I'd stick out in a
> major way, hear comments, etc. The audience consisted of some of the
> nicest people I've been around at a show. The same was true of the
> bikers at a Thorogood show. I dunno, maybe you've just had the
> misfortune of dealing only with goths and gays who were raging
> assholes?

Not at all. Bikers and rednecks are usually the first to offer help
or give you the shirt off their proverbial back. Gays do not
offend me in any way as long as they aren't grabbing ass. I expect
no less from heteros. But to say our youth aren't "dumbing down"
would be wrong. Virtually every statistic verifies this.

> What HAS dumbed us down is our corporate-owned media that suggests
> everyone can bring their own set of facts to the table, and they must
> all be taken seriously. Everything is now "debatable".
>
> "Next on Fox News - some believe the sun rises in the west. Are they
> right? We Report.You Decide."

And this is different than every minority demanding every
concession? One guy doesn't like the 10 commandments or
a Christmas tree - and it comes down. This country can't WAIT
for the chance to come to the rescue of the next 'victim'.

> And yes, MSNBC, ABC, CNN are bad as well. Not nearly as bad as Fox.
> But bad indeed.
>
>> My main point was to say that there is a lot of
>> shit that EVERY person lives with that doesn't suit their wants
>> or needs. You don't like corps, the tea party and unlimited
>> PAC money. I don't like moochers, entitlements and a host of
>> social programs/attitudes... it's a push.
>
> There's a big difference between the examples above and being butthurt
> over gays (no pun intended) and goths. And just to clarify -- it's not
> that I dislike corps. What I dislike is the overwhelming influence and
> power they have. The entire mainstream media owned by, what 2, 3
> conglomerates? You don't see any problem with that? Instead of actual
> journalism, we get Taco Bell's "head chef" and the Barbie Doll
> "journalists" shilling for their "gourmet" (*snort*) menu. It's a
> joke.

Who's butthurt? I don't like the gay lifestyle, but I'd never
harm a gay, never keep them from loving anyone they choose.
I think the goths, the hipsters, the jocks -- are stupid. It's youth
tho and they'll hopefully come thru it.

> And you're taking a mortgage deduction...so you don't dislike those
> gov programs as much as you claim to.

If you advocate for the poor and do not give more taxes than
required -- you do the same. I can adhere to a lot of shit I
DON'T like and live with it. In the same vein, I take the deduction
because it's there... it doesn't mean I agree with it. In a year
our house is paid for. I'll still advocate against it then.

>> I've learned to live with
>> what the world is... what it's become. I suggest you do the same.
>
> How defeatist of you.

Reality. It helps to know what we can do and what we can't.
I cannot save the world but I can help those around me
when needed. We function much better when we take off the
rose colored glasses. Obama damn well knows he can't
create a job, can't get a single person off of welfare that
doesn't want to come off. What he COULD do is to send his
own fucking brother a few bucks to get outta that mud hut.

>> OWS was a failure - corporate greed, along with personal greed,
>> will never go away.
>
> I suppose if you were looking upon OWS as the Teabagger's
> doppelganger, you might see it as a failure. But they're still at
> work, in different guises. Our "liberal" media lost interest in them
> long ago, of course, so you won't hear about it.

Yet the TP was claimed as being responsible for getting many
people in office. The last was only a week or two ago in Texas.
The media largely blasted the TP and made OWS out to be
our salvation with media coverage non-stop for weeks.
OWS was a failure no matter how you spin it. If they aren't
in the media they don't exist. At least 'successfully'.

> And I don't think the idea was to eliminate greed. That's, ya know,
> folly.

Indeed it is. but that WAS their agenda.

[AJ]

On Aug 5, 10:13 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 5:31 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
>
> > I've seen him answer many questions.
>
> You see him respond. You don't see him answer.

You should be ashamed your side is spending so much time and effort on
smearing a candidate instead of doing their jobs and focusing on more
important issues.

[AJ]

On Aug 5, 10:30 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How's the voter suppression in your state going?

So far, none of the dead men that voted for Obama last time hasn't
complained one bit this year. Thanks for asking.

[AJ]

Again, Obama's stupid mouth and plans for more regulations and taxing
the rich only makes the rich cautious, spiteful, and makes them weary
of expanding their business, or hiring new employees, and there's no
consumer confidence. Money talks and bullshit walks. You don't
punish Americans that worked hard and actually made it here in
America. To even suggest to do so, only shows just how much you don't
understand America. Obama has created an unstable atmosphere for
stockholders. He's for coal then he isn't. He's for more drilling,
then he's for growing more corn and being more green. Bottom line,
he's a clueless fuckup and the rich will sit and hoard their money
till we get back to a more functional government and weed out the
useless idiots we have now. If you want to spread the wealth, then
make the wealthy comfortable about spending their money.

Liberals like you just need to understand, you are not as equal to
your boss. If you even work at all. And you don't deserve anything
you didn't work for and earn.

[FVH]

Not only are you fat and gay, you are incredibly naive.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

[FVH]

LOL! I see what you're latest attempt at grasping is.

[FVH]

On Aug 6, 11:07 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> Again, Obama's stupid mouth

You're such a child, fatso. "Obama is a stupid head!"

> and plans for more regulations and taxing the rich only makes the rich cautious, spiteful, and makes them weary of expanding their business, or hiring new employees, and there's no consumer confidence.

Psst, these things were going on WELL before 1/20/2009, fat ass.

> Money talks and bullshit walks.

Or in your case, gov't money talks and diarrhea of the mouth walks.

> You don't punish Americans that worked hard and actually made it here in America. To even suggest to do so, only shows just how much you don't understand America.

In other words, you don't understand what's going on around you, so
you simply blame it all on "the other side". I thought tough guys
fought the good fight?

> Obama has created an unstable atmosphere for
> stockholders. He's for coal then he isn't.  He's for more drilling,
> then he's for growing more corn and being more green.  Bottom line,
> he's a clueless fuckup and the rich will sit and hoard their money
> till we get back to a more functional government and weed out the
> useless idiots we have now.  If you want to spread the wealth, then
> make the wealthy comfortable about spending their money.

You really need to stop attempting to read chain e-mails and listening
to Rush and Alex Jones, Goodyear blimp.

> Liberals like you just need to understand, you are not as equal to your boss.

Much like you're not equal to John Allison, fat boy.

> If you even work at all.

Says the fat faggot that spends his "working hours" trolling the
internet.

> And you don't deserve anything you didn't work for and earn.

Which is why you're poor and stuck in a go nowhere job. You don't have
an education, skills, or smarts to do anything else but sit behind a
register and get fatter by the day.

Nice PMS rant, fag face. I love how you continue to show you don't
know what's going on in the real world and live in this fat fantasy
bubble. You should stick to things you know--over analyzing pics of
shirtless men and food.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 6, 10:43 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> You should be ashamed your side is spending so much time and effort on
> smearing a candidate instead of doing their jobs and focusing on more
> important issues.

Said the guy who cheered for the Swift Boat attacks. Your hypocrisy
never finds a bottom.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 6, 11:07 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals
> LiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberalsLiberals

That was side one of this broken record titled "AJ". I wonder what's
on side 2....

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 6, 10:48 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

And is your state still enjoying all that stimulus money you claimed
was evil but took anyway? Well, of course it is! That gives you more
time to advance abortion legislation -- truly an important issue in
the bigger picture.

El Jefe

[steveh99]

In article <3ed50cdc-81b9-4df6-b001-1b812f3c8982@
8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...

LOL

[steveh99]

In article <9f80854c-bc22-43ea-b377-
e6184b...@a19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, busbo...@gmail.com says...

probably PUREPROFIT

[FVH]

FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH
FUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVHFUCKYOUFVH

[Captain Napalm]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:10:42 -0400, steveh99 wrote:

> probably PUREPROFIT

You don't know anything about profit, Wolfman. You've always worked menial
jobs for someone else.

[FVH]

Killer is beyond desperate. He can't find anything real to blame Obama
for, so he makes shit up and convinces himself it's reality. In other
words, he's a typical modern right winger.

[AJ]

? Refresh my memory. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[AJ]

Again, you display how much you can't handle facts. Liberals never
can. Enjoy being backed up by a bipolar loon and a dragqueen.

[AJ]

It is if you have a soul.

[FVH]

Don't you have a muscle to flex, Broncofag?

[FVH]

Can't keep up with your own spew, eh? I'm not surprised, considering
you get distracted when you see a french fry on the floor. LOL!

[FVH]

Your soul is surrounded by gravy and pie.

[FVH]

On Aug 6, 5:52 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> Again, you display how much you can't handle facts. Liberals never can.

It's funny that you think Jefe is a liberal. Then again you're
convinced Obama is a liberal.

> Enjoy being backed up by a bipolar loon and a dragqueen.

You're now backing up Jefe?

[steveh99]

In article <5252d075-4d5c-4bf2-a1e1-
1ed268...@f7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, jarj...@gmail.com says...

> On Aug 6, 5:23ï¿œpm, Captain Napalm <f...@email.address> wrote:
> > You don't know anything about profit, Wolfman. You've always worked menial jobs for someone else.

I killfiled him days ago
no biggie

[AJ]

On Aug 6, 3:13 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And is your state still enjoying all that stimulus money you claimed
> was evil but took anyway?

Bob McDonnell used the money wisley.

•Turned a $1.8 billion shortfall in the prior budget into a $400
million surplus, while rejecting an attempt by the prior
Administration to pass the largest tax increase in Virginia history;
•Cut $4.2 billion out of the current budget, reducing state spending
to 2006 levels and again balancing our budget without raising taxes;
•Made Virginia the third best job creating state in the nation in
2010.
The unemployment rate in Virginia has fallen from 7.2% when McDonnell
took office to 5.6% today, which is the 3rd lowest rate east of the
Mississippi. Virginia was named in 2011 by CNBC as “The Top State for
Business” in the country, with the highest total score in the history
of the survey. Since beginning of the administration, Virginia has
added 111,900 net new jobs and the number of unemployed Virginians has
decreased by 21% (-53,346) since the governor took office.

In 2011, McDonnell saw 92% of his legislative proposals pass the bi-
partisan General Assembly, including his plan that makes the largest
investment in transportation in Virginia in a generation, and
legislation to make college more affordable and accessible for
Virginia students.

McDonnell inherited an unprecedented $6 billion in budget shortfalls.
He defeated a proposed $2 billion increase in the state income tax,
kept existing car tax relief in place and brought Democrats and
Republicans together to close the shortfall without a single tax
increase, producing a $400 million surplus in the first fiscal year of
his administration. During that same time, 80% of McDonnell’s
legislative proposals passed Virginia’s bi-partisan General Assembly.

Bottom line, because of him, we have a surplus and he didn't raise a
single tax on anyone. Obama can only wish he could achieve what this
man has and can continue to do.

[FVH]

He'll slither away once he realizes his trolling is getting a
collective YAWN from the group.

[FVH]

Your irrational bitterness and hatred for your black leader is getting
in the way of you making sense, Professor.

[83LowRider]

AJ wrote:

> Bob McDonnell used the money wisley.
>
> �Turned a $1.8 billion shortfall in the prior budget into a $400
> million surplus, while rejecting an attempt by the prior
> Administration to pass the largest tax increase in Virginia history;
> �Cut $4.2 billion out of the current budget, reducing state spending
> to 2006 levels and again balancing our budget without raising taxes;
> �Made Virginia the third best job creating state in the nation in
> 2010.

<snip>

I said here about two years ago that this man should be
president and how he was one of the few I actually liked.
There's talk of him becoming VP -- tho I don't think it
will happen and his talents would just be wasted in that
position.

[AJ]

He's a good guy. I mean, just look at what he did after we voted out
a Democrat governor. He got us out of debt, gave us a surplus, and
didn't raise a single tax on anyone. Unlike Obama, he doesn't get in
the way of people succeeding and working for a living.

[FVH]

That's right, keep giving TCT Puddy those fat, high legs he so loves.
Do the world a favor, though, and put on a fresh pair of XXXL KISS
panties!

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 7, 10:34 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

Cut 'n paste all the things about him you want, Deep Dish -- the
simple fact that you can't dance around remains:

> Bob McDonnell used the money

Yep. He sure did. Despite all those wails and tears about the evil
stimulus, he still used it.

And he also gave credit to the Obama admin for helping with Virginia's
economy. Blasphemy! Guess that's why he didn't get the VP nod...

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 6, 5:48 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> ?  Refresh my memory.  I have no idea what you're talking about.

Welcome to the Internet, wherein one can do a search to look up
information. Just type "Kerry Swift Boat" into that Google search box
(you DO know how to access Google, right?) and learn. And look up
hypocrite as well, so that you fully understand what you are when you
criticize a party for using the same tactics you've cheered for in the
past.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 6, 5:49 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> It is if you have a soul.

So it was a matter of the soul that women needed a wand jammed up
their twat before having an abortion? I'd think a person who is
supposedly against government intrusion in personal matters would find
that idea abhorrent...

El Jefe