rMoney commits felony

[notyou2]

Norway?

YES THE HOME OF MY FATHERS.

My mothers had another home, but now Chicago is built on it.

Sorry, what did you say?

[Juan_Bottom]

IT'S THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH NO MATTER WHAT

[notyou2]

So we should call you Windy Fjord?

[Juan_Bottom]

"Einer" is my Grandfather's name. When my cousin moved to Norway, he changed his name to Einer too.

[notyou2]

Doesn't that mean like "only one" or something?

[notyou2]

Loner?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, basically, you don't "bite the hand that feeds you" to put it bluntly.

No, not necessarily. I see it more as a lack of concern for those individuals who are in a situation and whose needs are similar to those you have had.

Although you mention " I don't believe that has clouded my judgement on this basic view. In other words, I am confident that I would hold this view regardless, but my personal experience with it has certainly made me feel even stronger about it," I still think that your judgment is clouded by your nationalist/patriotic sentiments.
What do you think?

Do I really strike you as particularly nationalistic? Because it would really surprise me if I did.

In this circumstance, sure, but then again, it could be that you wish for those soldiers to retain their benefits because you personally identify with them. So, it may not be nationalist/patriotic sentiments, but more about identity with that group. (which seems to be what you're saying in the first response).

Yes, I would much more buy the "identify with them" theory than the "nationalistic" one. I do still believe I haven't let that bias affect me strongly in that regard as concerns McCain, though. I simply feel that it's "the right thing to do" to take care of them, and when "one of their own" actively tries to not do that right thing, I find it more reprehensible than someone who is not "one of them".

Sounds good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Night Strike]

Well that was why I caveated with "in the primaries". But for what it's worth, I disliked McCain much more than I do Romney.

Why? (Just wondering. I didn't/don't like either of them.).

McCain's voting record regarding the military and, most especially, his voting record regarding military retirees and veterans, and in particular those with military disabilities. Not only does it strongly go counter to what would typically be the conservative position (making him a bad Republican nominee from that perspective), but for me PERSONALLY (and I realize this is a personally matter), I consider it to be a slap in the face for the service that those individuals have put in to serve by someone who is intimately familiar with what they go through at the far extreme.

Some might say that his actions in that regard carry more weight exactly BECAUSE of his own service and everything that went with it, and I can respect that argument. I used to think the same thing until I looked closely at ALL of his voting record which, in my opinion, appears to be a willingness to completely remove any benefits associated with being a military retiree or veteran, and in particular those with military disabilities.

I also recognize that I may be biased because I am a military retiree with considerable disabilities. While I am certain it has strengthened my disgust with the man because of this, I don't believe that has clouded my judgement on this basic view. In other words, I am confident that I would hold this view regardless, but my personal experience with it has certainly made me feel even stronger about it.

I didn't realize he has a history of voting against military benefits and such. My only question would be if there was something objectionable thrown in the legislation that he was actually voting against, but I doubt he would actually stand on such a principle like that. Too many people have their priorities completely incorrect when it comes to who gets benefits from the government. The government should be providing great benefits to all military veterans while removing most of the handouts to people on welfare, etc. The federal government is in charge of raising a military for defense, so it's also their job to take care of the people who serve in that military. It's not their job to take care of people who have not actually worked for the country.

[Woodruff]

Well that was why I caveated with "in the primaries". But for what it's worth, I disliked McCain much more than I do Romney.

Why? (Just wondering. I didn't/don't like either of them.).

McCain's voting record regarding the military and, most especially, his voting record regarding military retirees and veterans, and in particular those with military disabilities. Not only does it strongly go counter to what would typically be the conservative position (making him a bad Republican nominee from that perspective), but for me PERSONALLY (and I realize this is a personally matter), I consider it to be a slap in the face for the service that those individuals have put in to serve by someone who is intimately familiar with what they go through at the far extreme.

Some might say that his actions in that regard carry more weight exactly BECAUSE of his own service and everything that went with it, and I can respect that argument. I used to think the same thing until I looked closely at ALL of his voting record which, in my opinion, appears to be a willingness to completely remove any benefits associated with being a military retiree or veteran, and in particular those with military disabilities.

I also recognize that I may be biased because I am a military retiree with considerable disabilities. While I am certain it has strengthened my disgust with the man because of this, I don't believe that has clouded my judgement on this basic view. In other words, I am confident that I would hold this view regardless, but my personal experience with it has certainly made me feel even stronger about it.

I didn't realize he has a history of voting against military benefits and such.

Quite a long history, unfortunately. I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that both Obama and Hillary Clinton (especially Clinton) had far better records regarding military benefits. I was actually shocked when I saw Clinton's recond on it, it was so good. And I got my information from their actual voting records, not some liberal website or anything like that.

My only question would be if there was something objectionable thrown in the legislation that he was actually voting against,

If it were only one or two pieces of legislation, that could well be a reason. But not when it happened with the consistency that it had (up to the 2008 election, which is the point I quit paying attention to it).

[Night Strike]

My only question would be if there was something objectionable thrown in the legislation that he was actually voting against,

If it were only one or two pieces of legislation, that could well be a reason. But not when it happened with the consistency that it had (up to the 2008 election, which is the point I quit paying attention to it).

Based on your comments, that's what I figured. Unfortunately.

[bedub1]

We've got some more hearsay!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... ingtonpost

Reid recalled a phone call his office received about a month ago from “a person who had invested with Bain Capital,” according to The Huffington Post.

Reid said the person told him: “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

I wonder if this is true. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It's definitely a reason not to release his returns.

[Night Strike]

We've got some more hearsay!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... ingtonpost

Reid recalled a phone call his office received about a month ago from “a person who had invested with Bain Capital,” according to The Huffington Post.

Reid said the person told him: “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

I wonder if this is true. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It's definitely a reason not to release his returns.

If this was true, why has he been running for president for 6 years now? Why would someone willfully commit such a crime for such a long period of time while also running for the highest office in the country? Furthermore, we already know that the Obama administration has been using the IRS to harass conservative donors and organization, so why would they completely ignore the person Obama is running against? Harry Reid is just baselessly throwing out accusations because he has nothing of substance to actually combat Romney with. Besides, why is he even campaigning for Obama anyway? Shouldn't he be running the Senate?

[patrickaa317]

We've got some more hearsay!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... ingtonpost

Reid recalled a phone call his office received about a month ago from “a person who had invested with Bain Capital,” according to The Huffington Post.

Reid said the person told him: “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

I wonder if this is true. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It's definitely a reason not to release his returns.

Sounds like he should have been appointed to the Obama administration to be along side Geithner, and almost Daschle

[Night Strike]

We've got some more hearsay!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... ingtonpost

Reid recalled a phone call his office received about a month ago from “a person who had invested with Bain Capital,” according to The Huffington Post.

Reid said the person told him: “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

I wonder if this is true. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It's definitely a reason not to release his returns.

Sounds like he should have been appointed to the Obama administration to be along side Geithner, and almost Daschle

Except for those it had been proven that those people didn't pay their taxes. This is just a comment from a nameless accuser to Harry Reid (although I'm guessing Reid just made it up). If the comment were true, shouldn't they be telling a prosecutor or federal attorney and not a politician?

[Woodruff]

We've got some more hearsay!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2ch ... ingtonpost

Reid recalled a phone call his office received about a month ago from “a person who had invested with Bain Capital,” according to The Huffington Post.

Reid said the person told him: “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

I wonder if this is true. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It's definitely a reason not to release his returns.

If this was true, why has he been running for president for 6 years now? Why would someone willfully commit such a crime for such a long period of time while also running for the highest office in the country?

I tend to agree. It simply doesn't pass the smell test.

[GreecePwns]

Richard Nixon committed crimes for a long time while also running for the highest office in the country.

[Night Strike]

Romney sternly replies to Reid, while Reid continues this new narrative that someone must disprove an allegation before the accuser offers their proof:

Mitt Romney lashed back at Harry Reid on Thursday in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, saying the Senate majority leader needs to "put up or shut up" after airing allegations about Romney's taxes.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, first raised eyebrows Tuesday by saying in a news interview that someone had told him Romney went 10 years without paying taxes. He would only identify his source as an investor in Romney's former venture capital firm, Bain Capital, and he acknowledged, "I'm not certain" it's true.

That didn't stop Reid from taking to the Senate floor Thursday to accuse the Republican presidential candidate again of paying no taxes, part of a broader Democratic attack on Romney for declining to release more than two years of tax documents.

"The word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years," Reid said. "Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn't."

But Romney forcefully denied Reid's allegations on Hannity's radio show Thursday.

"Harry’s going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong," Romney said. "It’s untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It’s wrong.

"So, I’m looking forward to have Harry reveal his sources, and we will probably find out it’s the White House."

Romney's campaign earlier rejected the majority leader's statement as "shameful."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/02/romney-to-reid-put-up-or-shut-up-on-source-untrue-tax-claims/#ixzz22Rma48LB

[Woodruff]

Romney sternly replies to Reid, while Reid continues this new narrative that someone must disprove an allegation before the accuser offers their proof:

Mitt Romney lashed back at Harry Reid on Thursday in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, saying the Senate majority leader needs to "put up or shut up" after airing allegations about Romney's taxes.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, first raised eyebrows Tuesday by saying in a news interview that someone had told him Romney went 10 years without paying taxes. He would only identify his source as an investor in Romney's former venture capital firm, Bain Capital, and he acknowledged, "I'm not certain" it's true.

That didn't stop Reid from taking to the Senate floor Thursday to accuse the Republican presidential candidate again of paying no taxes, part of a broader Democratic attack on Romney for declining to release more than two years of tax documents.

"The word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years," Reid said. "Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn't."

But Romney forcefully denied Reid's allegations on Hannity's radio show Thursday.

"Harry’s going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong," Romney said. "It’s untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It’s wrong.

"So, I’m looking forward to have Harry reveal his sources, and we will probably find out it’s the White House."

Romney's campaign earlier rejected the majority leader's statement as "shameful."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/02/romney-to-reid-put-up-or-shut-up-on-source-untrue-tax-claims/#ixzz22Rma48LB

Ok, I'm already on record as saying I don't buy this one. But if Romney is saying "put up or shut up"...what exactly is he expect Reid to put up? Does he believe that Reid has access to Romney's tax returns?

[Night Strike]

Ok, I'm already on record as saying I don't buy this one. But if Romney is saying "put up or shut up"...what exactly is he expect Reid to put up? Does he believe that Reid has access to Romney's tax returns?

He expects Reid to put up nothing, which is why he said it. Romney should continue to attack harshly against all of these baseless attacks. Every single thing they've attempted to pin on him has been roundly refuted, so now they're going as far as throwing out accusations of felonies and then demanding that Romney prove they aren't true. Romney must go on the attack about how Reid and Obama don't even believe in "innocent until proven guilty" in their attacks against him.

[Woodruff]

Ok, I'm already on record as saying I don't buy this one. But if Romney is saying "put up or shut up"...what exactly is he expect Reid to put up? Does he believe that Reid has access to Romney's tax returns?

He expects Reid to put up nothing, which is why he said it. Romney should continue to attack harshly against all of these baseless attacks.

You don't seem to have understood my question (or you're ignoring it).

Every single thing they've attempted to pin on him has been roundly refuted

That's really not true, you know.

[Night Strike]

Ok, I'm already on record as saying I don't buy this one. But if Romney is saying "put up or shut up"...what exactly is he expect Reid to put up? Does he believe that Reid has access to Romney's tax returns?

He expects Reid to put up nothing, which is why he said it. Romney should continue to attack harshly against all of these baseless attacks.

You don't seem to have understood my question (or you're ignoring it).

Well the only two possibilities are that he has nothing or he has something. If he has something that shows that a crime was committed, why hasn't Romney already been arrested? If Reid has Romney's tax returns, that itself is a crime, and if he releases them without Romney's approval, that is also a crime. So if Reid actually does have something, he's obtained it illegally and would be the one who has committed a crime, not Romney.

Every single thing they've attempted to pin on him has been roundly refuted

That's really not true, you know.

This is now the 2nd claim of an outright crime being committed by Romney, and both have been roundly refuted as being completely unfounded (timeline at Bain) or completely made-up (Harry Reid's comments). They're just trying to throw out all this made-up trash to completely distract from every policy that Obama enacted but doesn't want to run on.

[Woodruff]

Ok, I'm already on record as saying I don't buy this one. But if Romney is saying "put up or shut up"...what exactly is he expect Reid to put up? Does he believe that Reid has access to Romney's tax returns?

He expects Reid to put up nothing, which is why he said it. Romney should continue to attack harshly against all of these baseless attacks.

You don't seem to have understood my question (or you're ignoring it).

Well the only two possibilities are that he has nothing or he has something. If he has something that shows that a crime was committed, why hasn't Romney already been arrested? If Reid has Romney's tax returns, that itself is a crime, and if he releases them without Romney's approval, that is also a crime. So if Reid actually does have something, he's obtained it illegally and would be the one who has committed a crime, not Romney.

My point is that Romney should be saying things like that, not "put up or shut up", which just sounds childish.

Every single thing they've attempted to pin on him has been roundly refuted

That's really not true, you know.

This is now the 2nd claim of an outright crime being committed by Romney, and both have been roundly refuted as being completely unfounded (timeline at Bain) or completely made-up (Harry Reid's comments). They're just trying to throw out all this made-up trash to completely distract from every policy that Obama enacted but doesn't want to run on.

Perhaps regarding outright crimes, but I maintain that your previous statement is not true.

[Juan_Bottom]

PUT UP OR SHUT UP



Refuses to release tax returns.

[kentington]

Ok, I'm already on record as saying I don't buy this one. But if Romney is saying "put up or shut up"...what exactly is he expect Reid to put up? Does he believe that Reid has access to Romney's tax returns?

He expects Reid to put up nothing, which is why he said it. Romney should continue to attack harshly against all of these baseless attacks.

You don't seem to have understood my question (or you're ignoring it).

Well the only two possibilities are that he has nothing or he has something. If he has something that shows that a crime was committed, why hasn't Romney already been arrested? If Reid has Romney's tax returns, that itself is a crime, and if he releases them without Romney's approval, that is also a crime. So if Reid actually does have something, he's obtained it illegally and would be the one who has committed a crime, not Romney.

My point is that Romney should be saying things like that, not "put up or shut up", which just sounds childish.

Every single thing they've attempted to pin on him has been roundly refuted

That's really not true, you know.

This is now the 2nd claim of an outright crime being committed by Romney, and both have been roundly refuted as being completely unfounded (timeline at Bain) or completely made-up (Harry Reid's comments). They're just trying to throw out all this made-up trash to completely distract from every policy that Obama enacted but doesn't want to run on.

Perhaps regarding outright crimes, but I maintain that your previous statement is not true.

I agree that he shouldn't have spoken like that. I think the whole point of this is to get Romney to release tax records. They will apologize and say they thought the source was reputable. But all the while, his tax records are now open for conversation.
I think they just want to further divide him from ordinary people.

[bedub1]

This is now the 2nd claim of an outright crime being committed by Romney, and both have been roundly refuted as being completely unfounded (timeline at Bain) or completely made-up (Harry Reid's comments). They're just trying to throw out all this made-up trash to completely distract from every policy that Obama enacted but doesn't want to run on.

No, this hasn't been roundly refuted as being completely made-up. There has been no proof either way. It's still unknown. If Romney released his returns, and show that he has been paying taxes, that would be refuting it and proving it's made up. Just say "Not so" doesn't prove a fucking thing.

God damn you surprise me. Open your mind and think.