Repblicans we need Sarah Palin back to defeat the Obama!!!

I'm still waiting for all the laws Mitt has broken and especially the one where the libs call him a felon. :lol:
Much ado about nuttin' :eusa_whistle:

It's amazing how you right wingers can take a whole thought, divide it in half, and then run with the WRONG half as being "true".

Nobody is saying that Mittens is a felon.

What they ARE saying is that one of two things can be true. Either (a) Mittens lied to the American people about when he actually retired from Bain (1999), OR, if Mittens actually DID retire in 1999 (told the truth to the American people), then the document he signed in 2002 retiring from the company would be a document signed knowingly in error, thus meaning he lied to the SEC (which IS a felony).

Either he lied to the American people (showing a severe lack of integrity), or he lied to the SEC about when he retired (making him a felon).

So, in summary, Mittens is either a liar or a felon.
Your really warping reality he signed his earnings documents like 6-9 times while he was running the Olympics. A common business practice some other group of managers ran Bain. Not even close to any illegal activity. You are a victim of the "hype" :lol:
 
I'm still waiting for all the laws Mitt has broken and especially the one where the libs call him a felon. :lol:
Much ado about nuttin' :eusa_whistle:

It's amazing how you right wingers can take a whole thought, divide it in half, and then run with the WRONG half as being "true".

Nobody is saying that Mittens is a felon.

What they ARE saying is that one of two things can be true. Either (a) Mittens lied to the American people about when he actually retired from Bain (1999), OR, if Mittens actually DID retire in 1999 (told the truth to the American people), then the document he signed in 2002 retiring from the company would be a document signed knowingly in error, thus meaning he lied to the SEC (which IS a felony).

Either he lied to the American people (showing a severe lack of integrity), or he lied to the SEC about when he retired (making him a felon).

So, in summary, Mittens is either a liar or a felon.

Shouldn't the DOJ launch an investigation or is it past the statute of limitations, making it a non-issue, just like it was with our dear Secretary of the Treasury?
 
If Palin got the nomination, I'd vote for her, she isn't any worse than the present President.
 
Sarah Palin has been ignored by the media because theyre afraid of her

Like they're afraid of this guy

charles-manson.jpg


she's got the popularity of the people, support

Yeah, because reality TV worked out so well.
 
other than him not releasing 10 years of tax returns....what other actions or inactions are you referring too?

That is the current subject at hand, which I alluded to in a recent, earlier post. I'm not willing to just set that aside, and apparently neither are a fair number of GOP significants.

So...it's just tax returns? Something that he doesn't even have to produce under the law.
Again...much ado about nuttin'.

He doesn't have to but maybe he'd better. You may hate Dems for these negative ads but it's working. He needs to explain himself and the best way is to take the medicine right down and get it overwith.

Cons want him to give the returns up and they are the ones asking for 10 years worth. Bill Kristol advised him to do that just the other day.
 
I'm still waiting for all the laws Mitt has broken and especially the one where the libs call him a felon. :lol:
Much ado about nuttin' :eusa_whistle:

It's amazing how you right wingers can take a whole thought, divide it in half, and then run with the WRONG half as being "true".

Nobody is saying that Mittens is a felon.

What they ARE saying is that one of two things can be true. Either (a) Mittens lied to the American people about when he actually retired from Bain (1999), OR, if Mittens actually DID retire in 1999 (told the truth to the American people), then the document he signed in 2002 retiring from the company would be a document signed knowingly in error, thus meaning he lied to the SEC (which IS a felony).

Either he lied to the American people (showing a severe lack of integrity), or he lied to the SEC about when he retired (making him a felon).

So, in summary, Mittens is either a liar or a felon.

Bullshit. You obviously don't understand a leave of absence. For example, Steve Jobs took 2 medical leaves, remained CEO but handed over the managerial duties of day to day to another man who's name escapes me at the moment.

There are papers that have been examined that list 18 managers for Bain in I'm pretty sure it was 2000 and Romney was not listed as a manager

Leave of absence would still mean that Romney as CEO on record would still have to sign documents as CEO.

No brainer unless one just wants to believe all the lies and distortions thrown out by the Obama camp.
 
Palin was scary. When McCain was running I had strong misgivings about a person who prays for the end of the world on a daily basis having access to the nuclear football after the stress of the presidency killed McCain dead. God could have told that crazy broad to do anything.
 
I'm still waiting for all the laws Mitt has broken and especially the one where the libs call him a felon. :lol:
Much ado about nuttin' :eusa_whistle:

It's amazing how you right wingers can take a whole thought, divide it in half, and then run with the WRONG half as being "true".

Nobody is saying that Mittens is a felon.

What they ARE saying is that one of two things can be true. Either (a) Mittens lied to the American people about when he actually retired from Bain (1999), OR, if Mittens actually DID retire in 1999 (told the truth to the American people), then the document he signed in 2002 retiring from the company would be a document signed knowingly in error, thus meaning he lied to the SEC (which IS a felony).

Either he lied to the American people (showing a severe lack of integrity), or he lied to the SEC about when he retired (making him a felon).

So, in summary, Mittens is either a liar or a felon.

Shouldn't the DOJ launch an investigation or is it past the statute of limitations, making it a non-issue, just like it was with our dear Secretary of the Treasury?

Actually, no, because the DOJ and SEC know that he actually retired in 2002.

And, even though I've heard of early retirement, I've yet to hear the practice of retroactive retirement other than this one situation.
 
He doesn't have to but maybe he'd better. You may hate Dems for these negative ads but it's working. He needs to explain himself and the best way is to take the medicine right down and get it overwith.

Cons want him to give the returns up and they are the ones asking for 10 years worth. Bill Kristol advised him to do that just the other day.

You're completely wrong on this. Romney is running for President of the United States. You think he's supposed to be answering to the public? Look, there are alot of people out there who want to know who to vote for, they want to look at Romney and Obama, and figure out which one would be the best suited for the job to lead the country. They want to know whether either of these two people are in touch with the every day American. Well, you know what? Screw them! People need to learn that when someone runs for office, it's not about the public, it's not about what YOU the voter want to know about the candidates. There's only two requirements here: 1) He's not Obama, 2) He's not breaking the law. That's all the people need to know. If you don't vote for Romney because he didn't release his tax returns for the past decade, it means you want a law that would force him to release it, and if you want that then you must be a big government commie queor.
 
He doesn't have to but maybe he'd better. You may hate Dems for these negative ads but it's working. He needs to explain himself and the best way is to take the medicine right down and get it overwith.

Cons want him to give the returns up and they are the ones asking for 10 years worth. Bill Kristol advised him to do that just the other day.

You're completely wrong on this. Romney is running for President of the United States. You think he's supposed to be answering to the public? Look, there are alot of people out there who want to know who to vote for, they want to look at Romney and Obama, and figure out which one would be the best suited for the job to lead the country. They want to know whether either of these two people are in touch with the every day American. Well, you know what? Screw them! People need to learn that when someone runs for office, it's not about the public, it's not about what YOU the voter want to know about the candidates. There's only two requirements here: 1) He's not Obama, 2) He's not breaking the law. That's all the people need to know. If you don't vote for Romney because he didn't release his tax returns for the past decade, it means you want a law that would force him to release it, and if you want that then you must be a big government commie queor.

I thought that answering to the American public is why we elected our Senators and Congressmen, as well as the President.

OF COURSE they're supposed to be answering to the American people you fucking moron.
 
Sarah Palin has been ignored by the media because theyre afraid of her, she's got the popularity of the people, support, she can win it easily by herself without the McCain, we need to quickly get behind her, sign the petition and tell her to run because she will win. forget Romney, seriously.

Palin for president 2012!

SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING - Interviews with Supporters - YouTube
How do we know she won't quit when the going gets tough like she did in Alaska.
 
He doesn't have to but maybe he'd better. You may hate Dems for these negative ads but it's working. He needs to explain himself and the best way is to take the medicine right down and get it overwith.

Cons want him to give the returns up and they are the ones asking for 10 years worth. Bill Kristol advised him to do that just the other day.

You're completely wrong on this. Romney is running for President of the United States. You think he's supposed to be answering to the public? Look, there are alot of people out there who want to know who to vote for, they want to look at Romney and Obama, and figure out which one would be the best suited for the job to lead the country. They want to know whether either of these two people are in touch with the every day American. Well, you know what? Screw them! People need to learn that when someone runs for office, it's not about the public, it's not about what YOU the voter want to know about the candidates. There's only two requirements here: 1) He's not Obama, 2) He's not breaking the law. That's all the people need to know. If you don't vote for Romney because he didn't release his tax returns for the past decade, it means you want a law that would force him to release it, and if you want that then you must be a big government commie queor.

I thought that answering to the American public is why we elected our Senators and Congressmen, as well as the President.

OF COURSE they're supposed to be answering to the American people you fucking moron.

What the fuck is going on around here lately? Solar flares making people's sarcasm meters malfunction? Or is it just that there's been so much rampant stupidity on this board lately that obviously incredibly stupid statements are easily mistaken as being seriously intended? Maybe we should perm-ban Ariux as the first step in trying to reverse that trend.
 
That is the current subject at hand, which I alluded to in a recent, earlier post. I'm not willing to just set that aside, and apparently neither are a fair number of GOP significants.

So...it's just tax returns? Something that he doesn't even have to produce under the law.
Again...much ado about nuttin'.

Sez you. You're in the minority. Just FYI.

Show me the law to the contrary?
 
Common sense, along with major GOP leaders, is telling Romney to release the tax records.
 
I'm still betting brokered convention, if Romney keeps up with the line of defense.

How do you expect a brokered convention when Romney has enough delegates that are bound to him that have to vote for him in the first round?
 
Things I've learned from this thread:

1) The left wants just about anyone but Romney running against Obama this year
2) We need clearer convention rules so people dont get so easily confused about what happens there.
 

Forum List

Back
Top