Forum Post: Why willard why?
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 3, 2012, 9:49 p.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When willard ran for MA governor, Democrats insisted that he was not eligable to run because he was not legally a resident of MA for the required number of years. Willard stated that when he ran the olympics (1999-2000) he filed as a resident of both UT & MA.
This was proved to be a LIE.
Another problem for willard (maybe):
The holder of an offshore account must file an IRS disclosure document ( FBAR ) with their taxes to disclose the account. Willards 2010 IRS disclosure documents do NOT include this key document. But more seriously: so many holders of these accounts did not file, the IRS allowed a 2009 amnesty. What if willard did not file these documents in past years - commiting a felony - before he took advantage of the amnesty program?
Willard - is this the real reason why?
Or maybe Harry Reid is right. Willard - is this the real reason why?
[Removed]
But corporations do have a holes
[Removed]
Yep - executive management and Board of Directors. They seem to run around and shit on everything and everyone.
hey DKA how's the weather in CR, MN?
91 degrees Fahrenheit at the moment - pretty much the coolest day since the beginning of June.
hey !! It was bad yesterday in NY... too hot! ..but is nice today :)
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
What Reid was told is either true or it is false. Reid said he did not know, but since the claim came from a Baine investor, it was worth checking out.
There is a best evidence rule here. The best evidence is not who told Reid. It is the tax returns. If Reid tells us who told him do we know if it is true? No. Can the person prove that what was said was true? No. Maybe this was learned from another person. Maybe the other person was Romney. If so, would we know whether it is true? No. We would still need to see the returns.
Thus far, he has released part of one return. It is not complete. Is that the way it was filed? There are reasons, some stated above, why the only credible answers to important questions are in the tax returns. It has been speculated that Romney would rather give up his run than release the returns. That implies that there are some pretty serious damage contained in the returns.
The only compromise I can think of is this: if someone of demonstrated integrity who had seen the tax returns were to vouch for the answers. That might be acceptable to some. John McCain has seen all of them when he was considering Romney for his running mate, we were told this before this issue came up. Unfortunately for Romney, McCain thought Palin was better, more qualified than Romney. For McCain to conclude that, many believe there was some bad news in what Romney provided.
Vouching for that information is something that few or maybe even no one is willing to do. Romney has a problem that he can't wish away. Or blustering at Harry Reid is not going to make go away. Maybe if he bet Harry that he can't proove.....Naaaw, he already used that one.
Instead of asking Reid for evidence of who told him maybe he should just make them public like his Daddy did. To paraphrase Daddy, a partial one could be a fluke.
He could start out by meeting the requirement that cabinet officers are required to meet. Obama might need a Secretary of the Olympics. Oooops, I heard his Mormon buddies destroyed all of those records.
I don't know but I've been told, lies and deceit are growing old. In my mind all I see, is Reid in drag over Pelosi's knee...
I am surprised at the number of clairvoyant people who "know" that Reid is lying. They don't go on to say that they have seen the returns in order to make such a claim. McCain apparently has seen them but he has said nothing?
Have you heard him say anything? The head of the RNC makes the charge with what evidence, exactly? I didn't catch that. I am sure Reid is concerned about your costume party vision, as am I.
It is possible that the Baine guy is lying, is wrong, is nonexistant, or is telling the truth. Like Reid I must say I don't know what the truth of that situation is, but I know who does, and that person would rather that we not find out.
As I've pointed out repeatedly to Romney partisans, all he has to do to completely prove Reid unreliable and untruthful and himself a steadfast, honest candidate is release his tax returns. Even other Republicans have urged him to do so.
I agree with those Republicans. The GOP has called for disclosures of a lot less important documentation than this.
If they can repeatedly claim "show tthe birth certificate," even after it has been publicly Shown then folks saying "produce the tax returns" iis simple karma and common sense.
I was reminded today that we used to commonly make a verbal representation and make our X and it was accepted by everybody for important transactions. In several areas of the country this is still true. In several professions it isn't, and for good reason.
The release of Romney's tax returns only makes sense. After all, he is a candidate for President of the US. Such a release, at least in the only way I can make sense of his reluctance to do so, must be more damaging than not to release them
One speculation that I haven't heard for a while is that it would show investments in things that are frowned on by Morman's. I don't know what that would be.
Since the one he partially released is not complete, maybe the ones he gave to McCain were also incomplete and McCain wasn't comfortable with that?
Maybe he didn't pay his full tithes; the LDS Church is very strict about that: 10% off the top. Still that doesn't explain his allowing the continued damage to his campaign, unless release would mean disclosure of some other damaging information.
How soon we forget, it was only a few years ago that Obama used this very same tactic against Hilary in questioning Clinton ties to a holding company with rumored tax shelters. This is a guy who made a million dollars a year as a Congressman - he, too, is one of "them."
You will find, if you research my posts, that I have no preference for Obama, except perhaps as the lesser evil. That said, Romney will sooner or later have to release more than he's released if he expects to gain more traction going down the stretch.
I'm quite certain he realizes this. But even so, even an immaculate return offers nothing of value in the corrupt world of political influence, and everybody knows that,
You know, I think, too, that when the Dems chose to attack those such as Palin, they essentially set the standard measure of an American intelligence - if Sarah Palin is to be deemed "unintelligent" than certainly America is busting at the seams with a sub-par idiocy. If she is the bar or standard of measure of unintelligent, than it would seem many, many, Americans fit this category in varying degrees of lesser intelligence including even those such as Letterman who daily attempt to publicly access and scrutinize the intellect of our politicians. Was this a conscientious decision by the Dems;- I suspect that it was not... if it was, it was not an intelligent one; if it wasn't this itself is a reflection - one must question the overall intellect of the party. And I say that as someone nonpartisan.
I don't believe any of the candidates is going to turn anything around except their own pocketbooks.
True but there is too much about the present administration that I find truly bizarre.
"...there is a future vision to consider."
That's really the point. Most of us right now have to be willing to stand for a real change; to extend the American experiment and transform it into a real democracy, where the people decide for themselves.
Yea, there is definitely a problem.
"The continued denigration of everything American cannot win elections."
I missed something along the way. I can only assume you mean that Harry Reid's charge (whether true or not) that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for ten years is a "denigration of everything American..."
Non sequitur
If, on the other hand, you mean my comments about the corporatist American state, well, that's probably because I don't believe our elections change anything. Elections most often simply change the faces, but none of the policies.
Nah, I wasn't referring to anything you said, just the current general political will in general - I fail to see how anything of the current political mindset will further a future American prosperity or security; many in this country have children and grandchildren, some even great grandchildren. We've fought the wars of our era; we are done, but there is a future vision to consider.
"I don't believe that electioneering in the form of personal slander was ever so immediately televised from the floor of the Senate; this is not the intelligentsia that's going to save humanity,"
Frankly, politicians frequently resort to this childish behavior. I remember a Republican Congressman shouting at the President during a speech on the House floor. Both sides are despicable. They are puppets played before us to make us believe we have a choice, when in fact they all work for the same goal: corporatism.
By the way, Reid's allegation is only slander, if it is a lie, something Romney can easily prove by releasing his tax returns. Oh, he doesn't want to do that, which makes many people wonder why.
Not entirely true, it also has to be injurious, and in this case it is not.
In the words of the long forgotten wiseman when speaking of his AMERICAN people, LET MY PEOPLE GO! The continued denigration of everything American cannot win elections.
"I don't know but I've been told... on the Senate floor? The Senate now makes public service announcements? In the form of unsubstantiated political vitriol? This is what tax dollars pay for?"
I didn't know they did much of anything else in the Congress, but exchange unsubstantiated political vitriol.
I don't believe that electioneering in the form of personal slander was ever so immediately televised from the floor of the Senate; this is not the intelligentsia that's going to save humanity, this is a party of juvenile miscreants who can't even contain its own despicable behavior; they can't even manage their own circus - it would be laughable if it wasn't such a sad waste of human intellectual governing power.
The current administration may be bizarre, but certainly no more than the previous or than Romney, who apparently believes he's above any necessity to disclose his financial records.
I don't know but I've been told... on the Senate floor? The Senate now makes public service announcements? In the form of unsubstantiated political vitriol? This is what tax dollars pay for? This is the direction you prefer for America?
Listen, the Dems took a hit last week and everybody knows it. But, if they cannot stand on character and policy alone, then they do not deserve the power to govern 310 million plus people.
You have to bear in mind that I didn't vote for Obama the first time around because I was not impressed; eloquence only goes so far... Obama did not address any of my issues of concern; there were no common "talking points." And before you whip out that holier than thou, Dem sword, let me first take the opportunity to cut you in half: I am not a fundamentalist; I'm merely a casual moderate of wholly independent mind - as such, this World belongs to me.
Just reminding us of possibilities.
what worries me are the legal inequities
Bain, where Romney made his mark on the business world, was known--at least according to conservapedia--as a hotbed of outsourcing American jobs.
I don't much believe that companies outsource
outsourcing is based on the prejudice that other countries can't industrialize on there on
Or on the prejudice that slave labor is cheaper than wage slavery.
lol
Oh so true... but nobody cares. We know the rich hide money; has Reid published his tax returns? What about Pelosi? What about Debbie Wasserman Schultz? What of the claims of re-election fraud in Nevada? Should Reid even hold that office now? We're all so tired of the blatant hypocrisy, the malicious lies, the modus operandi - it's just not something intelligent people do or respond to.
There seems to be different requirements for disclosure by Congress. They are required to file financial disclosures. See http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/
Interesting choice of those who you are concerned about? And aren't?
I can't support the malevolence, the viciousness on either side. True, we will never eliminate factions of supporters or the need to raise the necessary capital to promote a candidate but I would still personally prefer to see the party system outlawed; there should be but one party - an American Party - that debates issues of relevance intelligently; under the party system, America - its people, its representatives, its governance - will always suffer an malevolent injustice. If this is to be our path, then let's do it proudly - axes and broad swords, and to the victor go the spoils.
The founders, who were people after all, didn't want there to be parties in American politics. They didn't figure out a way to keep them out. This is not too surprising or even disappointing given their failure on slavery.
I believe we can get the money substantially out of elections and governance, but keeping it out takes sustained effort. As a people, we rise to meet emergencies, but sustaining our focus on something so easy and important, there is little in our history to suggest that we have the will, the discipline to do it. People are lazy and they demonstrate in a thousand ways.
People get the government they deserve. And others also get it, whether they deserve it or not.
"Founders" need be capitalized; after all, they were not the true founders, merely the sixth or seventh generation Nation creators; if Washington is to be the Father, for truly it is he and he alone that is deserving, than Abigail Adams is certainly her mother, and Increase Mather was definitely her Grandfather.
I am very well aware that Jefferson's public face did not completely align with inner desire to take his place, in history, and so it is we have endured this failure, his indeterminism, or lack of the staunch determinism necessary to fulfill the vision of a governing purity. Governance always falls victim to the human dynamic, human interaction, and the necessary evolutionary construct of politics.
I cannot support the malevolent viciousness, the maliciousness, of Democrat politics; it's so incredulously juvenile, reprehensible, despicable, and embarrassing to us as an supposedly intelligent people.
We cannot travel through this century without total dedication to intelligent governance, to education, and scientific pursuit, or we will not survive as a species. There is no room for those of shallow philosophy.
I often point out that the founding fathers had fathers, yes and grandfathers and grandmothers.
In fact my family came to Mass. in 1634, and my male emigrant was a multi term member of the General Court. Is that a Founder? I agree that the "nation" grew and evolved from 1620 onward. There were many experiments in governance starting from the original oligarchy in Mass. and other colonies.
I think Winthrop had the more profound influence in that he set up what what was practically a rotating executive and his "oppression" led to his liberty speech and the "revolt of the freemen" and the resulting Body of Liberties which was the precursor of the Bill of Rights and which included freedom of speech, a right against uncompensated takings, a right to bail, a right to jury trial, a right against cruel and unusual punishment, and a right against double jeopardy. He and the Puritans are thus responsible for stimulating the protection of these rights from their abuse.
The GOP in recent times, most historians agree, has set the standard for hate speech and anti scientific, anti logical discourse. Intelligence that doesn't include adherence to the rules of logic and the scientific methods is a meaningless concept.
The wink and a nod to the corrupting influence of money in governance gave way when all GOP members voted against the Disclose Act which would have brought some transparency to the corruption endorsed by the Robert's Court in Citizens United.
I'm not certain which historians you refer to; many recent efforts incorporate academia's current anti-colonial-bias - these are not true historians, they're politicians; I don't recall any of the greats ever mentioning this political creation of GOP.
I can cite specific examples of this in books recently written; the difficulty arises in that they formulate an entire presentation on false premise - they rather superficially misinterpret, overlook initially, and then proceed to develop what is often a rather narrow and grossly skewed historical vision.
Whatever... I read, I study, and I persevere; there is nothing to be gained, but much to be lost, should I fail to obtain a true and accurate vision.
Although not succinctly stated, it appears this is a reference to Christianity, And the only thing I can say about that, is that this again is evidence of intellectual superficiality; there is nothing here representative of a scientific or philosophical logic.
There are very few in science today that do not adhere to an evolutionary framework; there are very few that would deny that ALL is evolutionary - there is nothing contained within our world that is not the product of innate evolutionary desire, everything from the food we eat to the chairs we sit on is the product of desire. And this includes spirituality and religion. Whether "true" or not is irrelevant, the reptilian core lives within us all. We are powerless to deny our own biology here because it informs our happiness.
Science admits of an anatomical evolution but denies the mind's development? Not likely and the very idea that this is a recent Homo Sap creation is absurd - it was born of some more archaic form. We will never, ever, be so intellectually informed as to deny our own biology; nor will we ever fully decipher the inner workings of the mind. It simply cannot be done.
So sorry to inform you, "Nature's God" has won the battle. And it wants the Disclose Act - run it up again.
Oh, and nice wiki, btw.
Technically, he can't really be accused of lying, since he added, "I don't know for a fact, but . . . " or something to that effect. Interesting the media glosses over that. I thought it was great when Reid said that, it put the ball in Romney's court. This attempt to throw it back in Reid's is, of course, damage control.
Romney said he would check to see if he paid less than 13.9%. Then the campaign said they wouldn't do that. That makes a liar out of Romney or maybe he can't control his campaign.
from a pure logic view, I believe both could be true....not a true "or" statement. try this on
"Romney lies and has no control over his campaign",
yep I think that works...
but if your point is that at least one of two is true, well that is as certain, as well climate change
Yep that works. You might be able to win a $10K bar bet with that one, (isn't that what everybody bets, $10K?)
Sometimes the caddies carry that little, I hear.
I'd bet on the former, although you're comment about some investments making the Mormon church unhappy is possible as well, which brings up its own set of questions. That man has baggage no matter how you look at it.
Of course the number of documented case of his lying must be in triple digits. Which is large for a politician who has served only one term. Palin might have more, pro rata, with a half a term.
How true. I found it extremely interesting that McCain chose Palin over Mitt, something I was unaware of until recently. I originally thought it was her gender (although that may still be the case).
The way it went down was very much like the primaries this year. The reduced the list to the obvious potential candidates and essentially it was reduced to Mitt. And by them every other candidate, including McCain, literally hated Mitt. And, pragmatically, they knew he would be a drag, not an asset. In desperation, they quickly, opened up the list to even unqualified candidates. She was photogenic, as is Bachmann. This time Mitt destroyed the opposition so they couldn't dump him. Unless, the evidence of a crime, being mean to his dog, being found in bed with a Democrat, comes along before the nomination. The evidence of a crime may be in those tax returns.
Admittedly, I wasn't paying attention back in '08 (thanks, OWS, for changing that). Mitt was the best (I use that term loosely) the Reps had to offer two elections in a row? Jeez, that almost makes me wish I'd stayed under that political rock.
Oh well, too late now. Whether there's an actual crime in those returns or not, I'm pretty convinced there's certainly a lot of embarrassment. There are those documents he, ahem, 'forgot' to file a few years ago, so it might be what's NOT in those files that he's trying to hide. A single missing tax document can mean a huge difference in tax liability, as you know.
I applaud your forthrightness, a too-scarce commodity today.
I think your conclusion that what is missing may be the source of embarrassment or possibly, illegality. "Failing to file" and "failing to disclose" are the types of status that the IRS regards as criminal, not just embarrassing, at least for the likes of us.
With two months to go, they'll drag it out as long as possible. Time's on Romney's side. A media distraction is probably in the works.
With a media that is all too willing to be distracted. The super PAC money keeps rolling in.
Distraction is the media's only job nowadays.
Thanks for the up-vote, btw (not that I put much stock in those things). Seems my buddy's been here and down-voted all my comments to you. Even when I criticized Mitt, something one would assume he agrees with.
Don't feel bad - eventually everyone on this forum who is pro people and pro health and anti-corpoRATist - will have the attackers make a run at them. They tend to like to gang-up to to see who they can get to abandon this forum.
Mitt is a waste of breath
the media likely makes more money from coke ads than super pacs
Want to know what top companies like Microsoft, Google, and even Coca-Cola spend on advertising? Here’s a breakdown by percent of revenues in 2006, starting with the most first (according to this article):
much of that to advertise on Google
That is stating it quite politely.
You know what's up, DK. But that's the only comment I'll make about it tonight. For the record, I don't play that childish shit, but you probably know that. Haven't down-voted anyone all day.
It is OK to show distaste for forum creeps. It even helps ( IMO ) to vent on the corpoRATist's shills trolls quislings. But that is not for everyone and some have told me it is not helpful to OWS - I tend to disagree with that last one.
Anyway don't let em get to you and be sure to stick around. {:-])
You know I'm not going anywhere. 'cept maybe to 'zero.' Heh heh heh.
It speaks more of the man that would waste his time scrolling through to do that, than it does me, eh?
Yes a very determined asshole to say the least - but that is how OWS attackers act it is what they get paid for. They do their very best to push your buttons and try to irritate you in anyway they can. Funny thing - they seem to be the only ones wrapped up ( concerned ) in the idea of a personal score. It would make a difference to me if they could still collapse a comment - but they can not do that anymore.
Keep-on Keeping-on - the silly assholes have down voted me and others here several thousand points before. No biggy - laugh at em.
True. Without the 'collapse' function, there's very little use for it. Now it's just an ego-inflater for those more concerned with schoolyard pecking-order bullshit than actually concentrating on the issues or conversations. Which reminds me, perhaps we should do the same? The issues and conversations I mean, not the pecking-order thing.
Concentrate on the issues. Yep. Is there a pecking order? um... no one told me.......
I think that was during my first extended vacation from the forum, beginning of the year I think? I think the Jenny incident was my first night back.
You chose a good moment to return it really sucked here on the forum for like two weeks by the time that that attack ended. It has been pretty peaceful around here since then.
I'll bet she does. I don't remember the details, came in on the tail-end. Was it trashy-related? I remember he allegedly had a bot and was up-voting people to get the admins attention.
It was during a major forum site attack and bots were down-voting quite a few OWS supporters. I lost 1200 points one night.
That was funny. Shows jart does actually have a sense of humor.
OH I bet she has a wicked sense of humor and at the time I was kind of a real pain in the ass for the forum I suppose.
If this forum is around long enough, I say we all throw a party when you get back up to Jenny's number.
;-)
Now - THAT - Was Funny. OH - I felt so large and in charge - not really - but I got quite a shock and then quite a laugh over it.
There often is one on the streets or in the schoolyard. Some may think such a thing is possible on an internet forum, but I don't think that's possible. However, karma points could be viewed in such a way, assuming you haven't actually thought much about exactly what they really mean.
To me mine means that I have been on this forum for awhile without getting booted. Others that run in the negative numbers? well the negative speaks for itself. To me I am most interested and respectful of good comments and posts. But no one gets a free pass or automatic acceptance. Hell I am the same person as I was when I 1st came here with a score of 0.
Am I being too kind to ol' Mitt? Looks like a nice enough fella.
What? Have you seen it sleeping or something? I hear even the nastiest can look absolutely peaceful and innocent when asleep. {:-])
It. Heh heh, you got that right. I'm still trying to decide which story I believe, the one about him being a reptilian, or the one about him being a robot. It's gotta be one or the other.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Before November!
LOL - I am going with psychotic that wants to be an artificial person.
Hey didja see my new open letter to government?
No. Link it and I'll check it out right now.
Here ya go. I had my arm twisted to send it.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proper-reform-what-do-you-think/
Don't you think obfuscation, wealth, dishonesty, the abiliity to flip-flop are gread talents for a President?
VOTE WILLARD!
or if you don't have the spine to vote for him,
vote for no one. ............................................................................sincerley yours david & charlie
I have always found those character traits attractive ...in an opponent. and any friend of david and charlie are .... friends of dave and chuck.
"There are things we know, and things we don't know, and things we don't know, we don't know."
I guess a broke clock can be right, imagine that.
maybe his phone is by the minute
maybe he wants to talk to someone
to complete contract negotiations
I am torn on this issue. Nobody really vetted Obama four years ago why he felt it necessary to write a book about his dad, and then soon after when his mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer, did he hang out with her at all?
Did Obama feel a sense of urgency to capture the history of his mother and what she accomplished in her life?
Once again it's the media avoiding vetting Obama and instead vetting Romney.
How on earth can you compare Obama's relationships to his parents to Romney's investments in offshore accounts?
You're kidding right? I think how a candidate treats his parents matters immensely. Certainly equal to income taxes.
so Occupy Protestors are really disgruntled number crunchers, who knew. Would explain the slowness with which they even considered getting MARGINALLY involved in the home foreclosure mess.
but hey, what's 5,000 foreclosures a day compared to jailing a couple of wall street executives.
So, you're serious. Thanks for explaining.
Obama went to Bali, half way around the world, and spent six months finishing up a book about his deadbeat drunk dad, called Dreams of my Father.
Upon arriving back to I presume was Chicago, his mom moved to Hawaii and was diagnosed with cancer. She told Obama about the cancer.
Obama's mother lived I think it was less than a year more. Did Obama visit with her during that time, or was he too busy moving his political career along instead.
Explain to me why it was ok to prioritize writing a book about a dad he only met once and who it appears made very little effort to be in his life, but then when his own mother is dying of cancer, he does what? What did he do?
He frickin traveled to Bali to write a book about a stranger, did he travel to be with his mom in Hawaii after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer?
It matters because Obama profited off of his passed mother's cancer battle by bringing it up over and over during the 2008 campaign, and drawing sympathy FOR HIMSELF from his adoring supporters.
Did Obama earn that sympathy by walking the walk, or not.
You have problems.
Yeah, OccupyNews is coo-coo. I have a Bavarian clock that makes the same noises.
Too funny!
I paid attention in 2008 and saw all the BS. The democrat party is in shambles via a progressive takeover that is no different than when the neo conservatives take control of the republican party.
I think the same of you. You obviously didn't see the commercials that Obama ran, or the way he just made his audience feel sorry for him, ABOUT HIS MOTHER'S CANCER.
I would suggest you may have parent issues yourself.
Everyone has one issue or another, OccupyNews. Get over it.
Sure, Romney has the income tax Issue, and Obama has the mommy issue.
Now there you go again, making very bad comparisons. That is so silly.
[Removed]
It wasn't just one commercial. Obama used the mommie meme several times, in ads in Texas, in the second debate with John McCain, and he used it in a more nationwide commercial as well.
I just don't think the media vetted this aspect of his life in 2008. You do realize that Obama's plane had a really cool buffet on it, and many reporter's biggest fear was to be not allowed on that buffet plane because of something they wrote that the Obama people did not like.
[Removed]
Obama has a female issue. Just as he appears to have marginalized his own mother after she discovered she had cancer. he did a similar thing to Elizabeth Warren.
First not appointing her as head of the consumer financial protection bureau that she helped create, then botching up her ":you didn't build that speech" which he borrowed from her.
Obama did the same thing over "Beergate" when he invited the two stupidly behaving men to the white house for a "beer" while ignoring the two women who responsibly reported the situation to police.
[Removed]
Wall Street was deeply involved in the housing meltdown of 2007-2008, unless you exclude banks from Wall Street, but that would be very hard to do.
No one vetted Obama? other than 3+ years questioning his religion & birthplace!
This seems like a very big stretch.
This is not a media issue
Obama disclosed
romney hides and lies
Vetting comes before you get the job. It's not the attacks you receive afterwards.
anti-Muslim crap & birther crap started BEFORE he was elected
[Removed]
excellent conclusion
are international banks the feared world government ?
[Removed]
already are
You mean vetting SHOULD BE before the job! The MSM gave Barry a pass go and finally have a real job card!
I was just teaching Bensdad a new vocabulary word
You're gonna teach Bensdad?
LMFAO. Whatta joke.
I know. A man his age should know what vetting means, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.
Bwaaaaaa Ha Ha Ha!
It took Obama a long time to disclose his fake documents
Obama made quite the deal about feeling his mother's pain when she was "dealing" with the health insurers.
However, no mention was ever made if Obama actually spent anytime with his mother after she told him she had terminal cancer and until she passed.
You think that is irrelevant? That type of a disconnect with one's own parent is a irrelevant, really? Yet just before her diagnosis Obama spent 6 months in Bali writing a book about his deadbeat dead.
Obama has a female issue, don't enable him.
For the last time read my OP -
It has nothing to do with media
You want vetting of Romney, fine. I want vetting of Obama. Obama campaigned in 2008 in several states about his mother's "battles" with the insurance companies. He also made commercials about his mother and how it affected him deeply.
It looks like Obama exaggerated the truth. My problem with his actions is it looks like he tried to profit off of his mother's experience without ever revealing if he was around for her during her battle with terminal caner, to help her during her final year before she passed.
If you think that is less relevant than Romney's income tax, I just plain disagree. They are at least a tie. I'll assume you just never heard Obama and his mommy meme's in 2008. They bordered on pathetic because he never revealed if he was by her side at any point in time, just that he felt her pain and you should be warmed by that.
You just don't have an ethical issue with that at all?
Your grasping.
I think we should get out of Pres Obamas personal relationship with his mother.
Releasing Income tax returns however is a time honored tradition in presidential politics. Comparing the 2 is a stretch. They aren't related.
Your boy Romney's Swiss bank accts, cayman island shell corps, and general tax avoidance. is un patriotic. It illustrates the problem with the tax code. His refusal to release indicates he is hiding something worse, so I suppose we can go without the passed returns because the damage is done. We just need to keep reminding people he is hiding something.
So in the end what matters is that your boy Romney wants to cut more taxes for the 1% plutocrats who crashed the economy. The great President Obama will raise taxes on the 1% plutocrats, and if we elect more progressives, and vote out more conservatives we might get real tax increases on the 1% plutocrats. 90% tax rate on income over a million dollars. Cut taxes/debt on working/middle class Americans.
It's the only way.
Romney is not my boy. Hillary Clinton is far and away the best choice for both 2008, and now in 2012.
Like I said up above. Obama ran commercials and spoke at debates and in town halls and made his audience feel sorry FOR HIM about his mother and her cancer battle. Did he earn that badge of honor by being there for her, or not.
You should watch the Music Man, it might help you get it.
I'm not so much interested in going after Pres Obamas personal relationship with his mother.
Sorry for me it ain't relevant.
"music man"? I think I saw the play.
You don't think it possible that Obummer's intention was to make contact on a personal level in the hopes of fostering support for a universal health care program?
Absolutely, but he didn't walk the walk, and that is what I have a problem with.
Helps to have a congress ( corpoRATist's ) that is not in open rebellion to the government and the people.
Obama was placed over Hillary Clinton by George Soros, Reid, Pelosi, Huffington, Winfrey, and then the rest that followed along.
Because of that, there is no way Obama was going to follow the path that Bill Clinton followed in the 90's when he actually lowered his yearly budget deficit each and every year he was in office. Clinton was the only president of the past 80 years to actually lower his annual budget deficit 8 consecutive years.
What the media did not report is that Obama was simply trying to reward everybody who helped get him elected. The media frames their stories as neo con on the right versus progressive on the left, the other 60-70% of the voters, the sane people, the moderate liberals and the liberal moderates, have been marginalized by the media.
Obama seems like a corporate shill all the way through
Hard to tell when you have corpoRATists in office muddying-up/preventing any possible good works.
Boy, you have a thick skull-
I am not asking about mommies or media or vetting
I am addressing DISCLOSURE
Don't bother replying - I won't'
It is DISCLOSURE to back up a relationship that OBAMA USED during the 2008 race to elicit sypathy and empathy for HIMSELF.
I guess you can't notice narcissistic behavior, I wonder why.
I love myself
I hope you do too
I don't know you that well - but I do like a lot of your contributions. {:-])
lol.
Father of Ben has not ethics! He's an Obama apostle
mispelling - apostate
[Removed]
any of the msm do any investigative reporting about obama and bill ayers? obama and wright? obama and his" community organizing"? why obama had to surrender his law license , same with his wife. what was obama relationship with fank marshall davis?
I think he been vetted pretty well. I haven't been surprised by anything, hes been the moderate I've thought he would be and got more done than I thought he would.
lol, Obama IS NOT a moderate. He's a raging liberal who only connects with the populace by indebting them with loans and credit.
You are not rational; you're a bloody lunatic accusing other people of crimes committed in your own twisted fantasies.
I feel like I just walked into a Perry Mason episode.
Uh, ok, sure, whatever you say.
Oh. I see. well thank you very much. I've been paying my debt down.
What debt are YOU talkin about.?
um, the 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in consumer debt that costs americans ONE BILLION DOLLARS A DAY just in interest rate payments to our beloved, starving banker friends.
www.debtneutrality.blogspot.com
The banks should be made to cut that consumer/student debt for working/middle class Americans. This should be part of a punishment of banks for their part in the world economic crash. Same with the 40% home value that the banks lost.
Make 'em pay.
I signed your petition. good luck in all your good efforts
How is it that Pres Obama is responsible for this?
That's the problem, cutting the amount owed is monetarily no different over the long haul than simply eliminating the interest rate charges. However, it will upset a lot of people who actually paid off their debts and did not get half off.
We had this discussion. The massive debt has made us indentured servants. What other people think isn't really relevant.
I support your idea, but I do think that bankster supporters (repubs) will feign being upset no matter what.
We can't let people being upset change our position/opinion. Whats right is right.
Regarding debt forgiveness, are the students going to give back their experiences, their college connections, their vaunted place at college that 10 others wanted and did not get?
It's like visiting an amusement park, using all the rides, than wanting one's money back because they threw up on the last ride of the day.
Interest rate forgiveness, penalties and fees forgiveness over the long haul I think is a better, fairer deal. Think of it as the throw up bag.
I don't care what the bankers think at all. I care what other people think, other main streeters who DID pay off their student loans. Where is their 50% off?
Even with your proposal there will be many people (repubs) who will complain that ir is not fair. because they had to pay higher rates, fees in the past.
I'm saying you can't avoid the jealous complaints and shouldn't consider them either way. (whether your proposal or mine)
Peace. Good luck in all your good efforts.
If the actual principle is not being touched, I don't think there will be that many complaints. And if there are, those people will become my enemies for life.
Oh well if they become your enemies I'm sure that will keep them under control. (That's like a superpower)
I don't suppose you'de be willing to use your super powers against those complaining about principle reduction.
Peace.
The problem with principle reduction is where does it stop? A homeowner lives in the same home for 20 years and pays it off. Ttheir home appreciates from 100,000 to 300,000 dollars over that 20 years time. Suddenly, almost overnight, the home is now worth only 150,000 dollars. They lost 150,000 dollars of home value.
but wait, the homeowner had already paid off the home, so it's no big deal. Bull. They have every right to compensation for their economic loss as someone who is underwater.
That's why cutting interest rate charges instead can be a more across the board move that instantly helps everybody.
I don't disagree entirely. I believe we were discussing credit card debt but ok I'll give it a try.
I do not think the homeowner you mentioned should benefit. Sorry, they paid off the mortgage. Certainly they would benefit from the increased home value that will come from the general improvement that a bank funded refinance program (based on new value) could bring.
Getting back to Credit card debt. So many Americans have credit card debt I think enough will benefit that those complaining can be handled.
Although I believe only those who are working/middle class with debt whose payments have already exceeded the principle should be eligible for reduction of 1/2, in addition to new lower rates.
Perhaps that is too convoluted. I don't pretend to understand the issues best.
Peace
Oh, you were referring to credit card in terms of principle reduction.
You said...Although I believe only those who are working/middle class with debt whose payments have already exceeded the principle should be eligible for reduction of 1/2, in addition to new lower rates.
"...Whose payments have exceeded the principle???" Oh, I get it. the person has actually paid back all that they owe, but because of interest rate charges they still have debt.
Yeah, I understand that. I mentioned some ideas like that on my http://credit-card-cap.com/3.html solutions page.
Yes, the amount that a person pays in interest is capped based on the amount of overall money they borrowed. Once they reach that threshold, lets say they borrow 1000 dollars, they can never pay more than 500 dollars in interest on that 1000 dollars.
I definitely think should be offered as a credit card option. Unfortunately, bankers and republicans call it socialism when capitalism has caps put in place to prevent predatory lending.
Not that I care what they think.
At least he was born in the United States.
[Removed]
LOL
Where is the 20/20 Dateline investigation on this? MSM is bullshit.
Also I'm predicting Romney will not get the nomination at the convention due to all his tax issues. And the fact that his wiring will malfunction and everyone will see he's a Robot.
And thanks for a good post Bensdad. Much better than your usual posts.
I learned most of this from MSM - Rachel Maddow & Lawrence O'Donnell
On www.dailypuma.com, you can track several dozen political blog RSS feeds at the same time. Because of that, I saw that Rachel Maddow segment as well.
The problem I have with what Maddow did is she would never go even 10% as far into anything to do with Obama. So as effective as her segment was, it's still coming from an anchor person with a pre-ordained agenda.
touche'
you got anymore info on his SEC records and his CEO status at Bain?
[Removed]