Romney releases tax returns!!!!

[candycorn]

Obama steals millions, Romney donates millions and Obama is the righteous one.....

Yeah...points to how sleazy Romney comes off as being. He deserves a better party than the GOP.

 

[daveman]

Nope. Not done.

If the polls show that Obama has less than a 10 pt lead in mid October, you will see the Obama campaign pushing hard for those returns.

And...if that doesn't seal the deal, expect some questions about the Whitehorse Prophecy.

Obama is a skilled politician and he runs a tight campaign. Romney is a joke.

That joke stands a real good chance of being your next president.

What I look for in a president is statesmen like qualities,not a cunning politician,but then that just me.

Romney does not posess those qualities.

Take an objective look at one of his speeches. He whines. His tone is that of a man pleading for forgiveness or imploring someone to have mercy on him.

His facial expressions are those of a man who is unsure how the audience will react to every applause line. His beady eyes darting back and forth seeking approval.

His gait is that of a mummy walking across an ice rink. Timid little steps....not really wanting to get up on that stage. Who could blame him?

Take an objective look. The guy does not have it.

You misspelled "a partisan hack". Twice.

 

[candycorn]

No it's not an opinion it's a fact, Obama is a weak leader. And he's weak against the enemies of the United States. And the country needs a leader who agrees with the free market principles in which it was built, not a guy who thinks big government is the solution to everything.

Yeah OBL thought so too.

So did all of the Al Queda leaders killed by drones without warning. That must be a serious mindfuck.

Obama is a good President; not great but good. He'll get a 2nd term easily. You should brighten up.

 

[daveman]

Now, Obama should give us all something, his college records for starters

We don't actually know who this Obama is, and yet the left blindly follows him like sheep to the slaughter.

Duh. He's our President. Where have you been?

Paying attention. Try it sometime.

That's excellent advice. Don't just listen to what Obama says, watch what he does. Because the two don't always agree.

 

[Old Rocks]

Romneys to Release Taxes | The Weekly Standard


Donted over 4 million to charity


Well.......that issue is done!!!!

Damn, do I ever like losing like this.

President Obama 247 Governor Romney 191

Scientists warn world: Prepare for extreme weather - US news - Environment - Climate Change | NBC News

Colorado President Obama 2.0 9 ev

Florida President Obama 1.7 29 ev

Iowa President Obama 2.3 6 ev

Nevada President Obama 2.5 6 ev

New Hampshire President Obama 2.3 4 ev

North Carolina Governor Romney 1.8 15 ev

Ohio President Obama 4.1 18 ev

Virginia President Obama 4.5 13 ev

 

[Old Rocks]

but if there's a prediction's thread, i'll post there: Obama's not getting a second term. I'm not 100% sure but i have a good feeling about that. And another prediction: Romney will be a great president.

how good of a feeling?

well i check the rasmussen's poll every day and they show romney running neck and neck with obama. As the election gets closer more people tend to go with the challenger, and undecided voters tend to favor the challenger. Hence i'm optimistic.

lol

 

[skookerasbil]

my gawsh the k00ks are going to be mighty shocked come election night!!! Im I'm 100% certain to be in here around 10 or 11pm rubbing the proverbial salt in the wound. And why am I 100% certain? Because when the economy is shit and the incumbent is under 50% = a loss.

But let them keep the wind in their sails with the RCP averages.......yuk......yuk..........I'll be set to roll out all my newest gay MSPAINT Photobucket Classics.!!!

 

[daveman]

Damn, do I ever like losing like this.Scientists warn world: Prepare for extreme weather - US news - Environment - Climate Change | NBC News

How fucked in the head do you have to be to enjoy people losing lives, homes, and livelihoods to extreme weather?

Oh, yeah -- you have to be an AGW cultist who doesn't give a damn about what happens to people, as long as you can claim your alarmist fear-mongering was "right".

 

[candycorn]

What wasn't emphasized on this most recent retreat from the Governor's campaign is also the sad concession that he had to release more data bout his secretive past; From USA Today:

The campaign said that for 2011 taxes, Romney had reduced the deductions he was claiming for charitable donations in order to maintain his promise that he had not paid less than 13% in taxes for any recent year. He also released a notarized summary of returns dating back to 1990, prepared by his accountant, saying Romney never paid an effective rate of less than 13%

A "notarized summary"? Are you f'ing kidding me?

If he had only come clean about his taxes last December....he could be spending his time attacking Obama; not releasing "notarized summaries" on the defensive. I'm sure there will be blame for the media coming.

 

[Annie]

Gee, what about the previous years?

what about em? Where's Obama's transcripts is a better question now.

Yeah. And that birth certificate! Where is the birth certificate!!!

Seriously, I've never cared about the birth certificate, IMO, that became moot with the last presidential election. Whatever happened on place of birth, the issue was raised and the electorate decided it was a non-issue.

The college transcripts though, all of them; along with the video/audio of Obama's appearance with Rashid Khalid I find problematic, to put it mildly.

L.A. Times Still Refusing to Release Video of Obama

L.A. Times Still Refusing to Release Video of Obama’s Party With Radical Islamists
September 22, 2012 |

The L.A. Times persists in hiding from the public a 2003 video of Barack Obama attending a party for radical Islamist activist Rashid Khalidi, a video that supposedly features extreme anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet, with criticism stinging, the Times has issued a rather feeble reason for keeping that important video secret from the American people.

They are “keeping a promise,” we are told, to protect a “confidential source.”

This is what L.A. Times VP for communications Nancy Sullivan told The Blaze this week.

In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported first, and in explicit detail about the dinner event and the tape of it. More than six months later, just days before the November 2008 election, the McCain Campaign demanded the public release of the tape. As we stated then, The Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided for review by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not publish the tape itself. The Times keeps its promises to sources and nothing has changed in that regard.

Amusingly, Sullivan also said that as far as she knew, The Blaze was the only ones asking about the tape.

Obviously Sullivan is uninformed. The folks at Breitbart have offered $100,000 for a copy of that video. Are we really expected to believe Sullivan hasn’t heard of this offer?

Not only that, but The Blaze story is chock full of voices scolding the Times for its recalcitrance.

But, let’s review Sullivan’s tenuous reasons for continuing the news blackout of this important video of a sitting president.

Firstly, Sullivan claims that her paper already published “explicit detail about the dinner event.” OK, fine. So, why is the video withheld if it really isn’t protecting any actual information? If the Times already told us all about the video, then why not release it? What could the paper be protecting at this point?

Secondly, the claim that they are protecting their source is a bit odd as it seems more like they are protecting information, not the identity of a source. And if the Times is claiming they don’t want to violate any “privilege” they already did that by publishing all that “explicit detail about the dinner event.”

But it is clear that the Times is not interested in keep private video private and only interested in keeping video of Obama under wraps. This week the paper has been all over the video tape of Romney’s private meeting where he discussed the “47 percent” of America that hews to the Democrat Party. That meeting was supposed to be closed to the public, yet the Times has reported about that video for days.

In the past the L.A. Times has claimed that its duty is to “publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.” But in the case of President Obama it seems that they want to protect him from those very readers who now can’t get the proper “information” with which to make those “informed decisions.”

 

[skookerasbil]

what about em? Where's Obama's transcripts is a better question now.

Yeah. And that birth certificate! Where is the birth certificate!!!

Seriously, I've never cared about the birth certificate, IMO, that became moot with the last presidential election. Whatever happened on place of birth, the issue was raised and the electorate decided it was a non-issue.

The college transcripts though, all of them; along with the video/audio of Obama's appearance with Rashid Khalid I find problematic, to put it mildly.

L.A. Times Still Refusing to Release Video of Obama

L.A. Times Still Refusing to Release Video of Obama’s Party With Radical Islamists
September 22, 2012 |

The L.A. Times persists in hiding from the public a 2003 video of Barack Obama attending a party for radical Islamist activist Rashid Khalidi, a video that supposedly features extreme anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet, with criticism stinging, the Times has issued a rather feeble reason for keeping that important video secret from the American people.

They are “keeping a promise,” we are told, to protect a “confidential source.”

This is what L.A. Times VP for communications Nancy Sullivan told The Blaze this week.

In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported first, and in explicit detail about the dinner event and the tape of it. More than six months later, just days before the November 2008 election, the McCain Campaign demanded the public release of the tape. As we stated then, The Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided for review by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not publish the tape itself. The Times keeps its promises to sources and nothing has changed in that regard.

Amusingly, Sullivan also said that as far as she knew, The Blaze was the only ones asking about the tape.

Obviously Sullivan is uninformed. The folks at Breitbart have offered $100,000 for a copy of that video. Are we really expected to believe Sullivan hasn’t heard of this offer?

Not only that, but The Blaze story is chock full of voices scolding the Times for its recalcitrance.

But, let’s review Sullivan’s tenuous reasons for continuing the news blackout of this important video of a sitting president.

Firstly, Sullivan claims that her paper already published “explicit detail about the dinner event.” OK, fine. So, why is the video withheld if it really isn’t protecting any actual information? If the Times already told us all about the video, then why not release it? What could the paper be protecting at this point?

Secondly, the claim that they are protecting their source is a bit odd as it seems more like they are protecting information, not the identity of a source. And if the Times is claiming they don’t want to violate any “privilege” they already did that by publishing all that “explicit detail about the dinner event.”

But it is clear that the Times is not interested in keep private video private and only interested in keeping video of Obama under wraps. This week the paper has been all over the video tape of Romney’s private meeting where he discussed the “47 percent” of America that hews to the Democrat Party. That meeting was supposed to be closed to the public, yet the Times has reported about that video for days.

In the past the L.A. Times has claimed that its duty is to “publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.” But in the case of President Obama it seems that they want to protect him from those very readers who now can’t get the proper “information” with which to make those “informed decisions.”

Indeed.........at least 400 people never saw this phoney on campus or in the classrooom. Because he was never there. It'll never play out in the media though........gag order on all outlets: national security matter.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Mitt Romney's Tax Returns: What Else is He Hiding? - YouTube

Take Gazprom for example, Russia's largest company;
http://hermitagefund.com/newsandmedia/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=58

What can Russia do to regain the confidence of investors?

The first step is to introduce laws to punish business corruption. Many Russian laws, drafted in a time when there was no private sector, are lax or non-existent in relation to business crimes. A petty thief caught stealing a loaf of bread from the supermarket has plenty to fear from the police -- he faces a prison sentence of up to three years. But if the manager of a large Russian oil company wants to transfer $1 billion to himself, he is totally within his rights to set up a transfer pricing arrangement, whereby the oil company would sell a few million barrels of oil to his own offshore trading company at $1.50 per barrel.


mitt 1% type