The AWOL Romney Tax Returns - what's the holdup?

[gobiggergoredder]

By the way - here's a link to the actual ad.

Note that this is not an Obama ad, and that the Obama campaign has stated categorically that they had nothing to do with this ad. That means nothing to the mainstream Fox Media, of course.

The ad was created by Priorities USA Action, a SuperPAC that is not allowed to coordinate with Obama or his campaign. Hooray for Citizens United!

There are two things I hate about this ad:

1. Politics in general - Both sides are airing these adds with zero substance. I will admit that this one is about as worthless as any that I have seen.

2. Bain Capital & Lay-Offs - How many people kept jobs because of the efforts of Bain Capital? They bought companies that were losers (generalizing here). Would it have been better if every company that Bain bought closed on their own? Are there still thriving steel plants in the city or same general location of the gentleman in the video (I doubt it).

Have any of you ever worked a place that has been mismanaged and or sold?

 

[Comish]

By the way - here's a link to the actual ad.

Note that this is not an Obama ad, and that the Obama campaign has stated categorically that they had nothing to do with this ad. That means nothing to the mainstream Fox Media, of course.

The ad was created by Priorities USA Action, a SuperPAC that is not allowed to coordinate with Obama or his campaign. Hooray for Citizens United!

And of course, if team BO SAYS they didn't coordinate, you just accept it, because THEY would never lie.........unbelievable.............

Of course, there IS that little fact of Stephanie Cutter caught lying on tape.................but I'm sure you rationalized that as FOX somehow photo-shopped it......

 

[Comish]

What this really tells me is that the Obama team will do/say/manufacture anything to win (Chicago style) and that MR and his team either don’t have the stomach for this level of campaigning or are naïve enough to think it wouldn’t get this bad.

Get real.

You might consider that antidote yourself.........

 

[Comish]

Here's a fun question - where has this Obama ad saying "Romney killed a woman" aired? Which state? When?

I'll give whomever gets the answer right first a +1.

Super fun bonus question - has the Romney ad stating that "Obama has declared war on religion" actually aired?

Another +1 to whomever gets that one right first.

To the first bonus.........I don't know if it has "aired" as defined as on commercial TV.........but it has been part of the new strategy of putting it on UTUBE style free views which are getting a ton of exposure......

Clever because it doesn't cost anything but you get the exposure........

Does that qualify for a +1?

 

[VA Husker Fan]

What this really tells me is that the Obama team will do/say/manufacture anything to win (Chicago style) and that MR and his team either don’t have the stomach for this level of campaigning or are naïve enough to think it wouldn’t get this bad.

Get real.

You might consider that antidote yourself.........

Great comeback. How about "You didn't build that" taken way out of context that aired again and again?

I give up on any political discussions here. I wish there was a way to not see political threads when I click for all new threads.

 

[Comish]

What this really tells me is that the Obama team will do/say/manufacture anything to win (Chicago style) and that MR and his team either don’t have the stomach for this level of campaigning or are naïve enough to think it wouldn’t get this bad.

Get real.

You might consider that antidote yourself.........

Great comeback. How about "You didn't build that" taken way out of context that aired again and again?

I give up on any political discussions here. I wish there was a way to not see political threads when I click for all new threads.

Just to be clear. It's OK for you to suggest that I "get real", but if your sophomoric jest is rebutted in your direction, it merits a derisive "great comeback"?

It's regrettable that you feel that you're done on this thread because I welcome discourse with differing opinions. And I do happen to believe Obama and his team will resort to anything. It's called an opinion and if you've really been paying much attention you'd be hard pressed to deny they have gone down the low road.

Having said that, I'd be glad to discuss/argue/debate policy with you.

It's what makes this country amazing. Two people can look at virtually the same data and interpret 180 degree opposite takes.

No offense intended by simply responding.......in effect........."back at you"

 

[JJ Husker]

Back to the topic.

I see Mitts failure to disclose in 2 ways. 1-it is stupid and possible suicide for him to let people reach their own conclusions about his finances. In that light, he is risking an awful lot by not releasing the info. 2-what is actually legally required for him to release and what entity is authorized to request and acquire it? Seriously, I don't know. But, it would appear that he is still the republican candidate and apparently he is not operating outside the law. It says a lot about people who are all up in arms over this if in fact he has met his legal disclosure requirements. Seems to me to simply be more of the same partisan politics. How many of you in here, clammoring for release of the documents, would consider changing your vote? None, that's how many. It's just another opportunity for you to discredit Obama's challenger, which you never seem to be able to miss the opportunity to do.

 

[knapplc]

Here's a fun question - where has this Obama ad saying "Romney killed a woman" aired? Which state? When?

I'll give whomever gets the answer right first a +1.

Super fun bonus question - has the Romney ad stating that "Obama has declared war on religion" actually aired?

Another +1 to whomever gets that one right first.

To the first bonus.........I don't know if it has "aired" as defined as on commercial TV.........but it has been part of the new strategy of putting it on UTUBE style free views which are getting a ton of exposure......

Clever because it doesn't cost anything but you get the exposure........

Does that qualify for a +1?

I gave it to you, but it was stretching the rules. That ad has never aired.

And to answer the question of whether I think the Obama Campaign coordinated with that SuperPAC to create that ad, my answer is: I think they did not coordinate in the same manner that the Romney Campaign has not coordinated with any of their SuperPACs. I feel comfortable in saying that none of these ads came as a surprise to either campaign.

 

[knapplc]

Back to the topic.

I see Mitts failure to disclose in 2 ways. 1-it is stupid and possible suicide for him to let people reach their own conclusions about his finances. In that light, he is risking an awful lot by not releasing the info. 2-what is actually legally required for him to release and what entity is authorized to request and acquire it? Seriously, I don't know. But, it would appear that he is still the republican candidate and apparently he is not operating outside the law. It says a lot about people who are all up in arms over this if in fact he has met his legal disclosure requirements. Seems to me to simply be more of the same partisan politics. How many of you in here, clammoring for release of the documents, would consider changing your vote? None, that's how many. It's just another opportunity for you to discredit Obama's challenger, which you never seem to be able to miss the opportunity to do.

I don't know about the "legal requirement" for information like this. I believe, while being too lazy to look it up, that he is not legally required to release any of it. However, if I'm hiring him for the presidency, he had damned well better disclose this info or there's no way he gets the nod. And I am very much not alone in that sentiment.

I am pretty much positive that George Will was correct: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

I believe that's what you call damned-if-you-do & damned-if-you-don't.

 

[ZRod]

How many of you in here, clammoring for release of the documents, would consider changing your vote? None, that's how many. It's just another opportunity for you to discredit Obama's challenger, which you never seem to be able to miss the opportunity to do.

Changing my vote because he releases his tax records and they are all legal? Not likely. But if Mitt could keep his foot out of his mouth and come up with some good answers to the tough questions he is asked I would strongly consider it. I didn't vote for Obama the first time around, but at the moment he has my support because I just don't think the whole trickle down economics makes any since. And saying you will repeal the health care act you first day in office without having a viable alternative plan is ridiculous. Everyone knows it's far from perfect and needs a lot of work so come up with some ideas of how to fix it don't just axe the whole thing, that's going to cost even more money.

 

[Comish]

Here's a fun question - where has this Obama ad saying "Romney killed a woman" aired? Which state? When?

I'll give whomever gets the answer right first a +1.

Super fun bonus question - has the Romney ad stating that "Obama has declared war on religion" actually aired?

Another +1 to whomever gets that one right first.

To the first bonus.........I don't know if it has "aired" as defined as on commercial TV.........but it has been part of the new strategy of putting it on UTUBE style free views which are getting a ton of exposure......

Clever because it doesn't cost anything but you get the exposure........

Does that qualify for a +1?

I gave it to you, but it was stretching the rules. That ad has never aired.

And to answer the question of whether I think the Obama Campaign coordinated with that SuperPAC to create that ad, my answer is: I think they did not coordinate in the same manner that the Romney Campaign has not coordinated with any of their SuperPACs. I feel comfortable in saying that none of these ads came as a surprise to either campaign.

I agree with you about both sides, but would go further...............I think they all coordinate and it's a joke and an insult for them to expect us to believe they don't.

 

[strigori]

Back to the topic.

I see Mitts failure to disclose in 2 ways. 1-it is stupid and possible suicide for him to let people reach their own conclusions about his finances. In that light, he is risking an awful lot by not releasing the info. 2-what is actually legally required for him to release and what entity is authorized to request and acquire it? Seriously, I don't know. But, it would appear that he is still the republican candidate and apparently he is not operating outside the law. It says a lot about people who are all up in arms over this if in fact he has met his legal disclosure requirements. Seems to me to simply be more of the same partisan politics. How many of you in here, clammoring for release of the documents, would consider changing your vote? None, that's how many. It's just another opportunity for you to discredit Obama's challenger, which you never seem to be able to miss the opportunity to do.

I don't know about the "legal requirement" for information like this. I believe, while being too lazy to look it up, that he is not legally required to release any of it. However, if I'm hiring him for the presidency, he had damned well better disclose this info or there's no way he gets the nod. And I am very much not alone in that sentiment.

I am pretty much positive that George Will was correct: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

I believe that's what you call damned-if-you-do & damned-if-you-don't.

Hell, I would bet to get any number of high end business positions (CEO, FCO) he would have to supply more info than he gave us. If you are running for President, you don't get secrets.

 

[sd'sker]

at this point, the reason romney needs to release them is because he is refusing to release them. he is not legally required to release them, but he has to be hiding something.

 

[Comish]

Back to the topic.

I see Mitts failure to disclose in 2 ways. 1-it is stupid and possible suicide for him to let people reach their own conclusions about his finances. In that light, he is risking an awful lot by not releasing the info. 2-what is actually legally required for him to release and what entity is authorized to request and acquire it? Seriously, I don't know. But, it would appear that he is still the republican candidate and apparently he is not operating outside the law. It says a lot about people who are all up in arms over this if in fact he has met his legal disclosure requirements. Seems to me to simply be more of the same partisan politics. How many of you in here, clammoring for release of the documents, would consider changing your vote? None, that's how many. It's just another opportunity for you to discredit Obama's challenger, which you never seem to be able to miss the opportunity to do.

I don't know about the "legal requirement" for information like this. I believe, while being too lazy to look it up, that he is not legally required to release any of it. However, if I'm hiring him for the presidency, he had damned well better disclose this info or there's no way he gets the nod. And I am very much not alone in that sentiment.

I am pretty much positive that George Will was correct: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

I believe that's what you call damned-if-you-do & damned-if-you-don't.

Hell, I would bet to get any number of high end business positions (CEO, FCO) he would have to supply more info than he gave us. If you are running for President, you don't get secrets.

Not condoning or defending Romney here, just want to make a point about the bolded above………

Do you consider Senator or Congressman comparable to “high end CEO” and/or business equivalent?

If so, there are lots of examples of congressional office holders who have not released their taxes. Yet they make the laws governing the rest of us.

Two egregious examples are the stonewalling by Harry Reid since the beginning of his Washington career (1987, I believe) and the irony of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who is the most vocal point person (other than Reid) calling out Romney but refusing to release her own. This doesn’t even venture into the absurdity concerning admitted tax cheat Timothy Geitner who arguably influences our day to day financial situation more than about anyone.

Again, not defending Romney, just wondered where the threshold is in your mind for public servants or potential public servants. Only Presidential candidates?

 

[knapplc]

How many of you in here, clammoring for release of the documents, would consider changing your vote? None, that's how many. It's just another opportunity for you to discredit Obama's challenger, which you never seem to be able to miss the opportunity to do.

The Birth Certificate nonsense says, "Hello."