Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Let's Make a Deal: Romney's tax returns for Obama's "Scandal du jour"

Let's Make a Deal: Romney's tax returns for Obama's "Scandal du jour" (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're doing the same thing hyteckit is doing. Are those counting filibusters? No, they're counting cloture votes. Cloture votes have zero to do with filibusters.
You are being borderline pedantic here my friend. "Technically speaking" you are correct in that the "filibuster" itself is the act of a Senator (or group of Senators) holding the floor and speaking for as long as they wish on any topic. It is designed to allow that Senator(s) to obstruct the progress of legislation that s/he is opposed to. And it works unless three-fifths of the Senators votes to invoke "cloture" which is designed to cut off the debate and move forward with a vote on the actual legislation. So it is absolutely incorrect to say that "cloture votes have zero to do with filibusters" because while they technically aren't the same thing they are in fact, two sides of the same coin. They basically go hand in hand. That being said, the current Senate rules no longer require a Senator to actually hold the floor and continually speak in order to affect a filibuster. A single Senator may block progress on legislation with a simple objection against proceeding. A mistake IMO and one of the key tenets of filibuster reform would be to modify the Senate rules so that a filibuster had to be done "old school" style. But in the meantime ... the bottom line here is that since the current Senate rules no longer require a Senator to actually hold the floor to affect a filibuster ..... voting against the cloture motion which requires a 60 vote majority has become the de facto filibuster. Which is why counting cloture votes was completely appropriate for the articles cited above.

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'll hit this first one for the benefit of the forum:
There was no filibuster. There was no Republican exhausting himself on the Senate floor over this.
The bill was passed by a 56-42 vote majority. It was filibustered, or otherwise the bill would've passed. "exhausting himself on the Senate floor" is just one way to filibuster.

This is a procedural filibuster, not a filibuster by extending debate.


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:13 AM
 
Even Olympia Snowe, a Republican, acknowledge that filibusters “increased exponentially, especially compared to the last three Congresses."
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The bill was passed by a 56-42 vote majority. It was filibustered, or otherwise the bill would've passed. "exhausting himself on the Senate floor" is just one way to filibuster.
This is a procedural filibuster, not a filibuster by extending debate.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
I'll try explaining this again.

A bill is a piece of legislature.

They did not vote on a piece of legislature. Said legislature is still up for consideration by the Senate, because it has not been voted on.

What they voted on was whether to place a time limit on debate before the bill goes to the full senate. This is not the same as voting on the bill itself, which hasn't happened. In fact, it's highly unlikely it ever will happen.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll try explaining this again.
A bill is a piece of legislature.
They did not vote on a piece of legislature. Said legislature is still up for consideration by the Senate, because it has not been voted on.
What they voted on was whether to place a time limit on debate before the bill goes to the full senate. This is not the same as voting on the bill itself, which hasn't happened. In fact, it's highly unlikely it ever will happen.
So you are saying the bill was filibuster before it had the chance to be voted on?

And a cloture vote to proceed failed to get the 60 votes needed?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:52 AM
 
So Republicans have been using a procedural filibuster to block most Democratic sponsored bills from being even being considered, required a 60 vote majority for all Democratic bills.

No wonder filibusters have skyrocketed.


Delay the vote or block the vote.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 10:56 AM
 
What I'm saying is your first sentence, "the bill was passed" is factually incorrect.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm saying is your first sentence, "the bill was passed" is factually incorrect.
True. You got me there.

But if the Republicans haven't filibustered the bill, it would've been debated on the floor and most likely passed with a simple majority vote.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 11:58 AM
 
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
True. You got me there.
Well, when I pointed out CNN was using the term "bill" incorrectly as you did there, you essentially called me a liar and told me to get my facts straight.


[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
But if the Republicans haven't filibustered the bill, it would've been debated on the floor and most likely passed with a simple majority vote.
I'm not so sure. As I said in the other thread, I don't think the bill was meant to pass, if there was evidence it was moving towards actually being passed, I bet you'd see some hasty rewriting to make it more practical.

It's important to note the key people in Congress almost always know how a vote is going to turn out before it happens. Now, if there was any logic to the system, that would mean Congress wouldn't waste their time having votes on things which don't pass. You'll notice that doesn't happen. Congress votes on things which fail all the time.

The reason is voting yea on a failed bill (or motion) is political currency. Even if the bill doesn't pass, someone who voted for that bill can tell their constituents all about how they're fighting the good fight even though in reality, they weren't able to do jack shit.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 12:07 PM
 
subego is absolutely spot on.

OAW

"legislation" vs. "legislature" notwithstanding.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
Well, when I pointed out CNN was using the term "bill" incorrectly as you did there, you essentially called me a liar and told me to get my facts straight.
I did not call you a liar.

Lying is saying something that you know is BS or not true.

When I ask "Can you smell you own BS?", I was asking if you know what you've said was BS.

I know it's not the most polite way of asking that question, but I felt you were grasping for straws, looking for anything in the article to complain about instead of debating the actual bill.

Initially, I ask politely about the CNN article about what specifically was incorrect about it. Instead of answer my question, you went on to say it was it wasn't really a bill, but a 2 paragraph sentence. That's when I called BS.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Initially, I ask politely about the CNN article about what specifically was incorrect about it. Instead of answer my question...
You accused me of grasping at straws and attacking the messenger without cause before I even had a chance to read, let alone respond, to your question.

You're asking me to consider that polite behavior?
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 03:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You are being borderline pedantic here my friend. "Technically speaking" you are correct in that the "filibuster" itself is the act of a Senator (or group of Senators) holding the floor and speaking for as long as they wish on any topic. It is designed to allow that Senator(s) to obstruct the progress of legislation that s/he is opposed to. And it works unless three-fifths of the Senators votes to invoke "cloture" which is designed to cut off the debate and move forward with a vote on the actual legislation. So it is absolutely incorrect to say that "cloture votes have zero to do with filibusters" because while they technically aren't the same thing they are in fact, two sides of the same coin. They basically go hand in hand. That being said, the current Senate rules no longer require a Senator to actually hold the floor and continually speak in order to affect a filibuster. A single Senator may block progress on legislation with a simple objection against proceeding. A mistake IMO and one of the key tenets of filibuster reform would be to modify the Senate rules so that a filibuster had to be done "old school" style. But in the meantime ... the bottom line here is that since the current Senate rules no longer require a Senator to actually hold the floor to affect a filibuster ..... voting against the cloture motion which requires a 60 vote majority has become the de facto filibuster. Which is why counting cloture votes was completely appropriate for the articles cited above.
OAW
I disagree and have already offered an extremely solid example of the problem. Reid filed cloture on 17 judicial appointments that hadn't even been brought to the floor for debate. Why? Not to end a filibuster (there was none) and not even to end debate (because there hadn't been any), but merely to subvert a congressional, constitutional obligation of advice-and-consent. I started off saying the intention was to cram crappy legislation into the system so when the "nos" come down you can point at the other as obstructionist. If they're refusing to take any Republican ideals under advisement and there are disagreements over a bill, what are they supposed to do? Fall prey to the bully tactics of the Senate and pass the crappy legislation? This doesn't make Republicans obstructionist, it makes them congresspeople doing their jobs.

If cloture equals "filibuster" and "I disagree" equals a cloture-worthy filibuster; I submit to you that the problem is not Republican obstructionism through the filibuster, but Democratic abuse of cloture filings as a political ploy. If congresspeople "threaten" a filibuster, make 'em honest. Make 'em filibuster old school style, exhausting themselves on the Senate floor. Unless of course you don't want a lot of public/media attention on the measure under consideration.

Democrats filibuster their own debt bill
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If cloture equals "filibuster" and "I disagree" equals a cloture-worthy filibuster; I submit to you that the problem is not Republican obstructionism through the filibuster, but Democratic abuse of cloture filings as a political ploy. If congresspeople "threaten" a filibuster, make 'em honest. Make 'em filibuster old school style, exhausting themselves on the Senate floor. Unless of course you don't want a lot of public/media attention on the measure under consideration.
Democrats filibuster their own debt bill
I read the article.

Sounds like Republicans filibuster the bill by requiring a 60 vote majority.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You accused me of grasping at straws and attacking the messenger without cause before I even had a chance to read, let alone respond, to your question.
You're asking me to consider that polite behavior?
I did ask politely initially.

It was on a later post where I said you were grasping at straws.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 05:49 PM
 
Speaking of poorly written bills.

Republicans don't even bother to proofread their own bills.

House GOP Regulatory Reform Bill Mistakes 'Employment' For 'Unemployment'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/house-regulatory-reform-gop-employment_n_1699673.html
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2012, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I did ask politely initially.
It was on a later post where I said you were grasping at straws.
As I said, you made this accusation before I even had a chance to read to your initial question. If you punch someone in the face without provocation, the fact you were polite beforehand carries little weight.

The irony here is upon reading your initial polite question, I was looking forward to discussing it with you. I value your opinion. You are often able to cut through many layers of crap with simple (though by no means simplistic) questions. Questions which are deceptively difficult to answer. One can't have holes in their game when debating you.

As would follow from that, your accusation of me of not wanting to debate you because of the superiority of your arguments couldn't be further from the truth. I welcome superior arguments. How else am I supposed to learn? I value discussion with you all the more so because we follow different ideologies. I'm here because I want to have my ideas challenged, not to talk with people who feel the same as me.

The reason I didn't want to debate you is because you attacked me for no good reason.

You later asked, I believe somewhat rhetorically, if my feelings were hurt. I was attacked for no reason by someone whose opinion I value. Yes. That hurt my feelings.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I read the article.
Sounds like Republicans filibuster the bill by requiring a 60 vote majority.
If that was your take-away, you didn't make it through the first paragraph of the article. Republicans wanted the bill to go to vote because the Dems didn't have the support for it and McConnell knew it.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If that was your take-away, you didn't make it through the first paragraph of the article. Republicans wanted the bill to go to vote because the Dems didn't have the support for it and McConnell knew it.
You mean that is Washington TImes' view, a publication own by the billionaire cult leader Moon.

Having more than 50 votes is enough support.

Republicans filibuster it by requiring a 60 vote majority. I guess you didn't make it past the first few words.

"Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber"


Republicans want a 60-vote threshold on almost every bill and that's why filibusters have gone up.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You mean that is Washington TImes' view, a publication own by the billionaire cult leader Moon.
Is that what you read in HuffPo? Both parties have insisted on 60 vote majorities for major legislation and when it suits them they want a 50-vote majority.

So... are you voting for Obama?
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 02:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is that what you read in HuffPo? Both parties have insisted on 60 vote majorities for major legislation and when it suits them they want a 50-vote majority.
So... are you voting for Obama?
No. I do my research unlike a lot of people on this forum.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2012, 03:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
No. I do my research unlike a lot of people on this forum.
I asked you if you were voting for Obama and you said "no. I do my research unlike a lot of people on this forum." So, you've done your research and as such will not be voting for Obama?
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2012, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I asked you if you were voting for Obama and you said "no. I do my research unlike a lot of people on this forum." So, you've done your research and as such will not be voting for Obama?
To be fair my friend ... you actually asked two questions in that post. I suspect the response you received was for the former. Carry on ...

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2012, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I asked you if you were voting for Obama and you said "no. I do my research unlike a lot of people on this forum." So, you've done your research and as such will not be voting for Obama?
Actually, I was answering your first question.

As for the 2nd question:

Yes, I've done my research and will not be voting for Mitt Romney, especially when he is refusing to release his tax returns.

Mitt Romney is a flip flopper and will say one thing this week and another thing next week.

Hell, he flip flop his position within the same day.


I was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2012, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
To be fair my friend ... you actually asked two questions in that post. I suspect the response you received was for the former. Carry on ...
OAW
Of course, I was holding a mirror in front of him. He missed it, but then I wouldn't have taken the conclusion of this "research" very seriously anyway.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Yes, I've done my research and will not be voting for Mitt Romney, especially when he is refusing to release his tax returns.
How many deaths are Romney's tax returns responsible for?

Mitt Romney is a flip flopper and will say one thing this week and another thing next week.
Hell, he flip flop his position within the same day.
I was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008.
http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/04/president-flip-flop-barack-obamas-broken-promises-policy-reversals-and-continuous-flip-flops/

Looks like you'll have to sit this one out.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
How many deaths are Romney's tax returns responsible for?
*That's* the gauge? Obama should have just pulled out that line when you and the other conspiracy theorists were pressuring him to release his birth certificate.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
*That's* the gauge? Obama should have just pulled out that line when you and the other conspiracy theorists were pressuring him to release his birth certificate.
Considering Obama has been directly responsible for thousands of deaths that wouldn't have happened if he was ineligible to become the prez, I'm not sure you can make that argument. Not saying Obama's actions weren't justified in those instances, just showing you the silliness of bringing that up .
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 09:26 AM
 
What thousands of deaths are we talking about here? The wars overseas?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 11:38 AM
 
The point is, Obama and the Democrats are the LAST PEOPLE who should be crying for transparency. Unless you don't have a problem with gross hypocrisy.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2012, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
How many deaths are Romney's tax returns responsible for?
Compared to Pres. Obama's college transcripts?

How many lives were screwed over by the likes of Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford? Thousands of Americans.
How many lives were negatively affected by financial scandals in the last 15 years? Millions of Americans.


Financial scandals we are facing right now:

Bank of America scandal.
Barclay Scandal
HSBC Scandal
LIBOR Scandal
Chase Scandal


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/04/president-flip-flop-barack-obamas-broken-promises-policy-reversals-and-continuous-flip-flops/
Looks like you'll have to sit this one out.
More like broken promises than flip flops. Most have to do with Congress.

Flip flips are changes on moral issues and values:
I'm for abortion before I'm against abortion.
I'm for gay marriages before I'm against gay marriages.
I'm for government health insurance mandate before I'm against health insurance mandate.

Mitt Romney has no moral core.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2012, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Compared to Pres. Obama's college transcripts?
No. Compared to President Obama's "Fast and Furious" plan he claims executive privilege on.

Like I said...looks like some will have to sit this one out.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No. Compared to President Obama's "Fast and Furious" plan he claims executive privilege on.
Like I said...looks like some will have to sit this one out.
You are comparing Mitt Romney's personal tax records with the federal government's classified documents?

Like I've said.

Pres. Obama's tax returns for Mitt Romney tax returns.
Pres. Obama's college transcripts for Mitt Romney college transcripts.


Looks like I'll be voting most the Republicans out of office because they seem more interested in hunting for witches, secret muslims, and secret communists. They are more concern with abortion and contraceptives than creating jobs.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You are comparing Mitt Romney's personal tax records with the federal government's classified documents?
No. I'm comparing insisting on providing more information where there is no evidence of wrongdoing, to trying to cover-up where there clearly was wrongdoing involved.

If it's simply requesting documents to dig for dirt, I'm pretty sure that Obama has Romney beat in the number of documents he refuses to let see the light of day.

TIme for you to look for a third party to vote for in November, really.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

No. I'm comparing insisting on providing more information where there is no evidence of wrongdoing, to trying to cover-up where there clearly was wrongdoing involved.
If it's simply requesting documents to dig for dirt, I'm pretty sure that Obama has Romney beat in the number of documents he refuses to let see the light of day.
TIme for you to look for a third party to vote for in November, really.
"Trying to cover up where there was clearly wrongdoing involved"

You keep reaching for that brass ring.

Also, I'll bet every cent I have that Barry will be re-elected, your lukewarm Conservative reeks of John Kerry, and we all know how that turned out.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 01:36 PM
 
i think there's a Mormon connection

Mitt wants Harry Reid to put up or shut up...i wonder what Mitt could do to shut Harry up....hmmm
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
"Trying to cover up where there was clearly wrongdoing involved"

You keep reaching for that brass ring.
It's hard when he keeps it sealed in an envelope that he won't let anyone see.

Also, I'll bet every cent I have that Barry will be re-elected, your lukewarm Conservative reeks of John Kerry, and we all know how that turned out.
My?

I'm not enamored of Romney, but he's got more positives than Obama. Romney has a pretty good track record of achievement that Barry does not have and never will. It's like how they tried to make Bane an albatross around his neck but it didn't work because people don't understand how making businesses successful is a bad thing, unless you're one of those "Occupy" loons that Obama already has in his court.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Compared to Pres. Obama's college transcripts?
How many lives were screwed over by the likes of Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford?
That wasn't the question. The question was, how many deaths were caused by Romney's tax filings? BTW, none of the scandals you cite were caused by Romney's tax filings either.

More like broken promises than flip flops. Most have to do with Congress.
Flip flips are changes on moral issues and values:
I'm for abortion before I'm against abortion.
It's usually more complicated than this, as in Obama's flip-flop on whether or not "mental-distress" qualifies as "health of mother" for late-term abortions.

I'm for gay marriages before I'm against gay marriages.
In 1996 Obama vowed to fight any legislation threatening the rights of gays to marry... until he ran for Senate and President. Now, to solidify his base has flopped back.

I'm for government health insurance mandate before I'm against health insurance mandate.
There's a difference between a state-wide mandate and a national, Federal mandate. Anyone who pays even a modicum of attention to politics should be able to understand this.

Mitt Romney has no moral core.
What, no qualifications cited for your official position here? Okay... Romney has more moral fiber in his pinky-toe than Obama's entire cabinet combined.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
How many deaths are Romney's tax returns responsible for?
None. How is this relevant to Romney refusing to release his tax returns?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
None. How is this relevant to Romney refusing to release his tax returns?
I can't see why people would be up in arms about tax releases when the President has never saw fit to release any of the documents which would shed more light on his past, and even his CURRENT role in things much more important that how much he paid in taxes.

If transparency is important to you, then you aren't going to refuse to vote for Romney and vote for Obama in this regard. You've already gone on record as transparency being unimportant to you.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I can't see why people would be up in arms about tax releases when the President has never saw fit to release any of the documents which would shed more light on his past, and even his CURRENT role in things much more important that how much he paid in taxes.
I completely agree.

By the same token, however, I can't see why people would expect Obama to release documents which would shed more light on his past, but not expect Romney to do the same.

I also still don't understand why you were wondering how many deaths were caused by Romney tax returns. Are you suggesting that his tax returns are not important if they haven't caused any deaths?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 02:27 PM
 
A question for the people defending Romney,

Do you think the unreleased tax returns contain politically damaging information?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I completely agree.
By the same token, however, I can't see why people would expect Obama to release documents which would shed more light on his past, but not expect Romney to do the same.[/quote[

Probably because Obama campaigned on transparency and the documents in question regarding his past have been requested for a whole lot longer than Romney has been Republican challenger. If Obama has refused for years, it's silly to request Romney to do the same or more over the past year or so.

[quote[I also still don't understand why you were wondering how many deaths were caused by Romney tax returns. Are you suggesting that his tax returns are not important if they haven't caused any deaths?
I'm suggesting that Obama sheltering documents related to a program his administration oversaw WHICH DID result in at least 300 unnecessary deaths, is a lot more important than whatever Romney paid taxes. That is, unless you've got evidence that whatever is in Romney's tax returns is of a life or death matter? Otherwise, Obama's supporters really don't have a leg to stand on.

Obama is a guy who we now know is the "capo of the Choom Gang, a guy with multiple names, multiple birthplaces, somebody who gave up his law license for never-explained reasons, a guy with a Social Security number from a state he never lived in" and who refuses to release just about any private information which he isn't legally required to do so, whose supporters want to know more than is legally required about the Republican candidate.

Give me a freakin' break, already. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220805no_more_mittster_nice_guy_its_time_to_figh t_back_against_dirty_harry/srvc=home&position=0
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A question for the people defending Romney,
Do you think the unreleased tax returns contain politically damaging information?
Yes.

I think we'd do well to ask ourselves why this is so important. IMO, the relevant concern would be impropriety. The necessary oversight authority has access not only to two years of his financials, but all of them. I juxtaposed an issue where the necessary oversight authority is being flat-out denied information by a bunch of people sworn to uphold the law and more Romney tax returns to illustrate the absurdity of the latter. I'm sorry it was missed.

  • They'll find an extremely rich guy which will lose voters who were ever beaten up by a rich guy.
  • They'll see a guy with a great deal of his own capital stowed overseas. This will lose voters who aren't aware that a great deal of their own capital is stowed overseas.
  • They'll see how Romney benefitted financially from an industry that risked its own capital, cut jobs, outsourced jobs, grew revenue for companies, grew jobs domestically and abroad, and expanded their own capital. This will be detestable to people who'd rather ignore that this is exactly what their government is doing with their money and years of no net-benefit in jobs or capital growth.

Unfortunately, the above comprises about 5% more of the voting public than Romney can afford to alienate. I would suggest he not release a thing without a thorough narrative to accompany it. Or make the deal with Obama.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes.
I think we'd do well to ask ourselves why this is so important. IMO, the relevant concern would be impropriety. The necessary oversight authority has access not only to two years of his financials, but all of them. I juxtaposed an issue where the necessary oversight authority is being flat-out denied information by a bunch of people sworn to uphold the law and more Romney tax returns to illustrate the absurdity of the latter. I'm sorry it was missed.
  • They'll find an extremely rich guy which will lose voters who were ever beaten up by a rich guy.
  • They'll see a guy with a great deal of his own capital stowed overseas. This will lose voters who aren't aware that a great deal of their own capital is stowed overseas.
  • They'll see how Romney benefitted financially from an industry that risked its own capital, cut jobs, outsourced jobs, grew revenue for companies, grew jobs domestically and abroad, and expanded their own capital. This will be detestable to people who'd rather ignore that this is exactly what their government is doing with their money and years of no net-benefit in jobs or capital growth.
Unfortunately, the above comprises about 5% more of the voting public than Romney can afford to alienate. I would suggest he not release a thing without a thorough narrative to accompany it. Or make the deal with Obama.
Let's grab some cigars and step into the back room. I've got Cubans.

[click]

Okay, now that we're alone, you've got this backwards. All that stuff you listed is happening right now, only it's much worse because it's all hypothetical. Harry just made a bunch of shit up, and that has more legs than all of Romney's ****ing team put together.

This is Politics 101. Get out in front of it.

I should go back now, people might get suspicious. When you get tired working for a ********* come and join us on Johnson's team. We could use a smart cookie like you.

We may not win, but the tradeoff is you get to live with yourself.

Enjoy the cigar.

[click]
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes. I think we'd do well to ask ourselves why this is so important.
Mostly, because it will demonstrate to the public in stark dollar signs how coddled and privileged by the current tax code the ultra-wealthy really are in America. Given that the Republican goal is to make this unfairness even worse, it's easy to see why the Democrats want those tax filings revealed. Especially if it proves he occasionally pays no federal taxes at all.

I mean, it's bad enough that some born millionaire can hide out from the Vietnam War in a French palace pretending to be "missionary," but not even paying a single dime in taxes today to support American's current soldiers? Fncking shameful if true.

The simple fact is that a millionaire doctor or lawyer who works 50 hrs in American pays higher rates than unemployed multimillionaires like Rmoney will demonstrate to everyone that things need to change, and the tax burden needs to be smoothed out.

There are probably other, smaller issues being hidden: Did he pay all his tithes? Did he benefit from the Swiss tax amnesty? Has he ever been forced to pay a multimillion dollar settlement following an IRS audit? Did he invest in companies of disreputable business goals? How much more than $77,000 in tax deductions went from the general tax pool into his stupid dancing mule? And so on.

But the Obama administration already knows those issues. They already have the tax returns, and are salivating with glee. They're ready to run those ads now.

Where did they get them? Assuming Barry didn't walk down to the IRS office himself and demand his own copy (pretty unlikely), I can think of four possible sources:
1) A McCain staffer who hates Romney, and wants to see him removed from the ticket;
2) An IRS employee who votes Democrat (probably lots of those) who leaked them anonymously;
3) A former Bain executive who was stomped on by Romney at some point, the kind of thing that happens in business every day;
4) A Mormon church official who has become disgruntled, lost his faith, hates Romney personally, or some other reason.

I love that fact that Rmoney is now under the gun for his multimillion dollar IRA. His balls are in a vice on that one and there's no "narrative" that will save him. It proves that Rmoney's wealth is not merely about "hard work," but a clever game of loophole exploitation. And that's not surprising since his business of Private Equity is nothing but a clever game of loophole exploitation itself. It's yet another example that America's laws unfairly favour the very wealthy, and Romney isn't the man who will fix that problem.

They'll see a guy with a great deal of his own capital stowed overseas. This will lose voters who aren't aware that a great deal of their own capital is stowed overseas.
Hilarious bullish!t. The mortgages and pensions of America are not stashed in foreign tax havens or smuggled into IRAs, and they certainly aren't getting their money back from illegal tax avoidance schemes in Switzerland by an amnesty designed to benefit millionaire tax cheaters. (Oh yes, I'm pretty confident that Rmoney was a beneficiary of that Swiss banking tax amnesty.)

They'll see how Romney benefitted financially from an industry that risked its own capital, cut jobs, outsourced jobs, grew revenue for companies, grew jobs domestically and abroad, and expanded their own capital. This will be detestable to people who'd rather ignore that this is exactly what their government is doing with their money and years of no net-benefit in jobs or capital growth.
Since you're answering questions today, here's question: what do you make of Sheldon Adelson funding Gingrich's attack video on Bain Capital as vulture capitalism, and then Adelson later becoming a bottomless pit of money for the Romney campaign?

Unfortunately, the above comprises about 5% more of the voting public than Romney can afford to alienate. I would suggest he not release a thing without a thorough narrative to accompany it.
A thorough narrative, from that guy? Have you listened to him lately?

I'm pretty disappointed that a pre-baked excuse for serial tax avoidance would satisfy you, but fixing America's broken tax system that favours the megarich isn't important to you. I think your priorities are pretty messed up.

The convention is coming. I've already said this once, but here it is again: Rmoney isn't gonna survive as the candidate. An awful lot of Republicans are shocked and ashamed of Romney's refusal to release his taxes, and disgusted with his terrible public performance so far, and they see issues like the bloated IRA as inescapable burdens.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's grab some cigars and step into the back room. I've got Cubans.
[click]
Okay, now that we're alone, you've got this backwards. All that stuff you listed is happening right now, only it's much worse because it's all hypothetical. Harry just made a bunch of shit up, and that has more legs than all of Romney's ****ing team put together.
This is Politics 101. Get out in front of it.
I should go back now, people might get suspicious. When you get tired working for a ********* come and join us on Johnson's team. We could use a smart cookie like you.
We may not win, but the tradeoff is you get to live with yourself.
Enjoy the cigar.
[click]
That was an epic post. [golf clap]
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 03:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

Okay, now that we're alone, you've got this backwards. All that stuff you listed is happening right now, only it's much worse because it's all hypothetical. Harry just made a bunch of shit up, and that has more legs than all of Romney's ****ing team put together.
This is Politics 101. Get out in front of it.
There's no reason Romney needs to shoot his wad prior to the convention and the beginning of public debate against Obama. None of the stuff I listed is hypothetical, but it is too complex to fit into a 60-second soundbite between Olympic events. Much of what I've rattled off could be saved for when folks are paying more attention.

True, the "get out in front of it" side of Politics 101 is dead-on which is why I've suggested he assume an offensive posture and lay the challenge out there. It's bold enough that it'd get a lot of media attention and place the Obama team on the defensive while bringing the issue to the public.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2012, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Mostly, because it will demonstrate to the public in stark dollar signs how coddled and privileged by the current tax code the ultra-wealthy really are in America. Given that the Republican goal is to make this unfairness even worse, it's easy to see why the Democrats want those tax filings revealed. Especially if it proves he occasionally pays no federal taxes at all.
Granted, the IRS may be mired in pursuing the $1 billion in back-taxes owed by Berkshire Hathaway from 2002 and while I’m not certain how neatly this fits into the “Buffett rule” (Warren Buffet of BH), I’m certain the IRS has enough time to shake down a GOP candidate for President. With the number of tax cheats among Obama cabinet members past and present alone including Daschle, Geithner, Rangel, Sebelius, Killefer, Marshall, etc -- I can see why every dollar of tax revenue would count. How much is Jeffrey Immelt/GE (head of Obama’s Jobs Council) paying in taxes while outsourcing investment and labor courtesy of the US taxpayer? In fact, are there any other businesses on Obama’s business advisory panel that have Romney’s “problem” of outsourcing investment and cutting and outsourcing labor? Or is this all of a sudden acceptable because they have something to offer the agenda du jour? I mean, I can understand ignoring this President’s record on Gitmo, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and unprovoked military action, but bedding down with big corporation? I would’ve thought a proper liberal would concern themselves less with what folks do with their own capital in a global economy than blatant abuses of the public trust using taxpayers’ money, but it appears it’s entirely contingent upon whether there’s an (R) or (D) after their name.

Why would you focus so much ire on the ones most in support of simplifying the tax code?

I mean, it's bad enough that some born millionaire can hide out from the Vietnam War in a French palace pretending to be "missionary," but not even paying a single dime in taxes today to support American's current soldiers? Fncking shameful if true.
What if it's not true? What if the truth is Romney's tax-hedging doesn't hold a candle to the corruption currently under way among the incumbent administration?

The simple fact is that a millionaire doctor or lawyer who works 50 hrs in American pays higher rates than unemployed multimillionaires like Rmoney will demonstrate to everyone that things need to change, and the tax burden needs to be smoothed out.
There are probably other, smaller issues being hidden: Did he pay all his tithes? Did he benefit from the Swiss tax amnesty? Has he ever been forced to pay a multimillion dollar settlement following an IRS audit? Did he invest in companies of disreputable business goals? How much more than $77,000 in tax deductions went from the general tax pool into his stupid dancing mule? And so on.
But the Obama administration already knows those issues. They already have the tax returns, and are salivating with glee. They're ready to run those ads now.
Where did they get them? Assuming Barry didn't walk down to the IRS office himself and demand his own copy (pretty unlikely), I can think of four possible sources:
1) A McCain staffer who hates Romney, and wants to see him removed from the ticket;
2) An IRS employee who votes Democrat (probably lots of those) who leaked them anonymously;
3) A former Bain executive who was stomped on by Romney at some point, the kind of thing that happens in business every day;
4) A Mormon church official who has become disgruntled, lost his faith, hates Romney personally, or some other reason.
I love that fact that Rmoney is now under the gun for his multimillion dollar IRA. His balls are in a vice on that one and there's no "narrative" that will save him. It proves that Rmoney's wealth is not merely about "hard work," but a clever game of loophole exploitation. And that's not surprising since his business of Private Equity is nothing but a clever game of loophole exploitation itself. It's yet another example that America's laws unfairly favour the very wealthy, and Romney isn't the man who will fix that problem.
Fun speculation from a classist, voyeuristic zealot. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain mckenna. You're in full-on duped mode my friend. I hope you can sleep better at night protecting the real criminals here. Good show.

Hilarious bullish!t. The mortgages and pensions of America are not stashed in foreign tax havens or smuggled into IRAs, and they certainly aren't getting their money back from illegal tax avoidance schemes in Switzerland by an amnesty designed to benefit millionaire tax cheaters. (Oh yes, I'm pretty confident that Rmoney was a beneficiary of that Swiss banking tax amnesty.)
What, they're getting their hard-earned money's worth from enter oversight/economic advisory agents here getting drunk overseas with executives of firms getting their pockets lined just before going belly-up? Hmm. Doth protest too much.

Since you're answering questions today, here's question: what do you make of Sheldon Adelson funding Gingrich's attack video on Bain Capital as vulture capitalism, and then Adelson later becoming a bottomless pit of money for the Romney campaign?
I'll bite as soon as you tell me what you think of the Clinton campaign's attack on Obama's Kenyan place of birth and cocaine usage. Seems there's no shortage of cruel campaign tactics.

A thorough narrative, from that guy? Have you listened to him lately?
We'll see how this goes. I don't know that he needs to do too much right now while few are really paying any attention.

I'm pretty disappointed that a pre-baked excuse for serial tax avoidance would satisfy you, but fixing America's broken tax system that favours the megarich isn't important to you. I think your priorities are pretty messed up.
It doesn't satisfy me. It involves decades of complicating the code to pick this winner or that. I've been railing against this system for as long as I can remember. I have no clue how you got the idea that I was in support of the ridiculous tax code here.

The convention is coming. I've already said this once, but here it is again: Rmoney isn't gonna survive as the candidate. An awful lot of Republicans are shocked and ashamed of Romney's refusal to release his taxes, and disgusted with his terrible public performance so far, and they see issues like the bloated IRA as inescapable burdens.
Your view is noted. You'd rather coddle the criminals currently in office to protect them from indictments of impropriety so you can point at the symptoms of a stupid tax code you think is all Republicans' fault. Not good enough. The hill is much tougher a climb for the incumbent and this incumbent @ 8.3% unemployment, is no different.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't think it's "gaining steam." I'm guessing most Americans could care less, much like the birth certificate issue.
Almost three weeks, and it's still being discussed.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,