Democrats To Present Another Bill To Give Americans Transparency

[AmericanFirst]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

Kind of like dimwits dancing around the truth.

 

[DiamondDave]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

how is this?... if you want transparency for vetting, do it COMPLETELY.. there is no use doing it half assed or just focused on something YOUR agenda benefits from

So if you do it across the board and all the way, I am for it... if it is just this selective bullshit that is clearly agenda driven, then I am against it

 

[Murf76]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

What's ambiguous about calling it a "witch hunt", "partisan", and a misuse of Congressional power?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

Kind of like dimwits dancing around the truth.

^^see?

 

[Goodoledays]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

Oh you mean like when Ubama gives one of his speeches. He runs like a nitwit without a head at the end so he doesn't have to answer any questions. Thats because he has no answers hes just full of _ _ _ _.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

how is this?... if you want transparency for vetting, do it COMPLETELY.. there is no use doing it half assed or just focused on something YOUR agenda benefits from

So if you do it across the board and all the way, I am for it... if it is just this selective bullshit that is clearly agenda driven, then I am against it

I agree, so why do you think it's selective?

 

[Full-Auto]

With the GOP shooting down the disclose act last week, proving again they will do everything they can to hide their wealthy masters instead of presenting transparency, the democrats again stand on the side of the american people.

Democrats are currently in the works to present new transparency legislation that would require all presidential candidates to release 10 years of tax returns, as well as disclose all assets including overseas bank accounts.

I'm sure when it comes up for a vote, the GOP trash will filibuster it. The GOP would rather hold their middle fingers up to the american people then disclose transparency,...

Dem bill would require 10 years of tax disclosures by presidential candidates - The Hill's On The Money

Damn you guys are butt hurt. The double standards of you low life knows no bounds.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

If it covers anyone running for national office, not just the president, would you support it?

If it would, I would. What's your answer?

 

[Murf76]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

Kind of like dimwits dancing around the truth.

^^see?

Nope, I don't.

This partisan legislation is designed to force ONE citizen to publish his private tax information in the hopes that political hay can be made by his opponents, as we see by the timing involved. This is not in response to any credible accusations of criminal behavior, and hence is without warrant and wholly political. That would put it firmly in opposition with the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Full-Auto]

Kind of like dimwits dancing around the truth.

^^see?

Nope, I don't.

This partisan legislation is designed to force ONE citizen to publish his private tax information in the hopes that political hay can be made by his opponents, as we see by the timing involved. This is not in response to any credible accusations of criminal behavior, and hence is without warrant and wholly political. That would put it firmly in opposition with the Fourth Amendment.

You know democrats are lying somewhere with other intentions.

The latest transparency was to once again threaten whistle blowers from the ATF.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

If it covers anyone running for national office, not just the president, would you support it?

If it would, I would. What's your answer?

Hey Dread,

Yes I would actually I'm more for public financed elections but until then, all big donors should disclose. I want to know who these pols may or may not be beholden to.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Kind of like dimwits dancing around the truth.

^^see?

Nope, I don't.

This partisan legislation is designed to force ONE citizen to publish his private tax information in the hopes that political hay can be made by his opponents, as we see by the timing involved. This is not in response to any credible accusations of criminal behavior, and hence is without warrant and wholly political. That would put it firmly in opposition with the Fourth Amendment.

The only reason you think it's designed to force one citizen to publish tax information is because only ONE person in this race will not publish his tax information. If Obama didnt publish his, you would make the arguement that it would force TWO citizens. But it would apply to all other canidates in the future...I guess you're against that too.

 

[DiamondDave]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

how is this?... if you want transparency for vetting, do it COMPLETELY.. there is no use doing it half assed or just focused on something YOUR agenda benefits from

So if you do it across the board and all the way, I am for it... if it is just this selective bullshit that is clearly agenda driven, then I am against it

I agree, so why do you think it's selective?

Jesus Christ... do I have to say it AGAIN..?? I have only posted it about 30 times this morning

Because it is ONLY focused around the tax return... and as pointed out, ain't it a coincidence that it is the target to attack Romney in the latest class warfare attempt??

If you want open vetting, do it ACROSS THE BOARD... tax returns, school records, employee reviews, military records, court records, driving records, THE WHOLE 9 YARDS

 

[Murf76]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

If it covers anyone running for national office, not just the president, would you support it?

If it would, I would. What's your answer?

I still wouldn't. I see nothing in the Constitution which would allow for private information to be forced from citizens and made public for the purpose of creating political fodder. We're talking about requiring information without warrant and without the suspicions of criminality we'd associate with getting one. Let's not forget that information we can demand is outlined by the U.S. Constitution and in State constitutions around the country, having to do with specific requirements that candidates should meet for a given office.

Now, if they want to make the release of tax returns a Constitutional Amendment, let them make a go of it. But until then, it's arbitrary law, politically motivated, and in conflict with our current laws.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

If it covers anyone running for national office, not just the president, would you support it?

If it would, I would. What's your answer?

Hey Dread,

Yes I would actually I'm more for public financed elections but until then, all big donors should disclose. I want to know who these pols may or may not be beholden to.

When obamaturd reveals where the 300 million campaign funds came from for his last campaign, then I would be happy. Double standard much? Idiot left.

 

[Murf76]

^^see?

Nope, I don't.

This partisan legislation is designed to force ONE citizen to publish his private tax information in the hopes that political hay can be made by his opponents, as we see by the timing involved. This is not in response to any credible accusations of criminal behavior, and hence is without warrant and wholly political. That would put it firmly in opposition with the Fourth Amendment.

The only reason you think it's designed to force one citizen to publish tax information is because only ONE person in this race will not publish his tax information. If Obama didnt publish his, you would make the arguement that it would force TWO citizens. But it would apply to all other canidates in the future...I guess you're against that too.

Romney HAS released his tax information. The beef Democrats have is that it was two examples and not ten, and they couldn't find anything politically destructive enough to run with.
As I said, the only thing "transparent" is the political motivation of Democrats. They weren't running around 4 years ago demanding that all candidates give up ten years' worth of tax returns, were they? The idea that this proposal isn't targeting Romney is ridiculous given the timing of it.

Do give us your excuse why this type of seizure would be allowable under the Fourth. What's the "probable cause"?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nope, I don't.

This partisan legislation is designed to force ONE citizen to publish his private tax information in the hopes that political hay can be made by his opponents, as we see by the timing involved. This is not in response to any credible accusations of criminal behavior, and hence is without warrant and wholly political. That would put it firmly in opposition with the Fourth Amendment.

The only reason you think it's designed to force one citizen to publish tax information is because only ONE person in this race will not publish his tax information. If Obama didnt publish his, you would make the arguement that it would force TWO citizens. But it would apply to all other canidates in the future...I guess you're against that too.

Romney HAS released his tax information. The beef Democrats have is that it was two examples and not ten, and they couldn't find anything politically destructive enough to run with.
As I said, the only thing "transparent" is the political motivation of Democrats. They weren't running around 4 years ago demanding that all candidates give up ten years' worth of tax returns, were they? The idea that this proposal isn't targeting Romney is ridiculous given the timing of it.

Do give us your excuse why this type of seizure would be allowable under the Fourth. What's the "probable cause"?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

He's released only the years for when he decided to run for POTUS. Of course those years would be done on the level. No one running for office has ever (correct me if I'm wrong) released only two years of tax returns. Mitt is the first (correct me if Im wrong).

So what they werent asking for it 4 years ago. That means nothing since both candidates did it voluntarily. You wouldnt need a bill like that since every canidate has released tax returns voluntarily. The 4th doesnt apply here...They are requiring that canidates release them. The 4th says that people cannot search his shit. So the 4th is protected and you can stop pretending it's in danger.

Are you for all future candidates releasing their tax information? Or do you care about money in politics at all? Because repubs keep talking about changing the culture in Washington, how Washington and pols are bad...then those same repubs fight tooth and nail to protect those same pols. You hate it and like it all at the same time.

 

[Murf76]

The only reason you think it's designed to force one citizen to publish tax information is because only ONE person in this race will not publish his tax information. If Obama didnt publish his, you would make the arguement that it would force TWO citizens. But it would apply to all other canidates in the future...I guess you're against that too.

Romney HAS released his tax information. The beef Democrats have is that it was two examples and not ten, and they couldn't find anything politically destructive enough to run with.
As I said, the only thing "transparent" is the political motivation of Democrats. They weren't running around 4 years ago demanding that all candidates give up ten years' worth of tax returns, were they? The idea that this proposal isn't targeting Romney is ridiculous given the timing of it.

Do give us your excuse why this type of seizure would be allowable under the Fourth. What's the "probable cause"?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

He's released only the years for when he decided to run for POTUS. Of course those years would be done on the level. No one running for office has ever (correct me if I'm wrong) released only two years of tax returns. Mitt is the first (correct me if Im wrong).

So what they werent asking for it 4 years ago. That means nothing since both candidates did it voluntarily. You wouldnt need a bill like that since every canidate has released tax returns voluntarily. The 4th doesnt apply here...They are requiring that canidates release them. The 4th says that people cannot search his shit. So the 4th is protected and you can stop pretending it's in danger.

Are you for all future candidates releasing their tax information? Or do you care about money in politics at all? Because repubs keep talking about changing the culture in Washington, how Washington and pols are bad...then those same repubs fight tooth and nail to protect those same pols. You hate it and like it all at the same time.

Romney's tax returns were sufficient for the IRS, so that makes them "on the level". There are no specific allegations of wrong-doing that could be considered as "probable cause" to procure a warrant. The information taken wouldn't be used for any official function of the government, but rather released to the public in order to satisfy political curiosities.

Candidates do not give up their citizen rights in order to run for or to hold office. So, while it's traditional nowadays for candidates to release tax returns, they can't really be compelled if they refuse.

In terms of candidates who have "released only two years of tax returns", John McCain in the last election only released two.
Outrage over tax returns a replay of past campaigns | wtsp.com

 

[AmericanFirst]

Romney HAS released his tax information. The beef Democrats have is that it was two examples and not ten, and they couldn't find anything politically destructive enough to run with.
As I said, the only thing "transparent" is the political motivation of Democrats. They weren't running around 4 years ago demanding that all candidates give up ten years' worth of tax returns, were they? The idea that this proposal isn't targeting Romney is ridiculous given the timing of it.

Do give us your excuse why this type of seizure would be allowable under the Fourth. What's the "probable cause"?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

He's released only the years for when he decided to run for POTUS. Of course those years would be done on the level. No one running for office has ever (correct me if I'm wrong) released only two years of tax returns. Mitt is the first (correct me if Im wrong).

So what they werent asking for it 4 years ago. That means nothing since both candidates did it voluntarily. You wouldnt need a bill like that since every canidate has released tax returns voluntarily. The 4th doesnt apply here...They are requiring that canidates release them. The 4th says that people cannot search his shit. So the 4th is protected and you can stop pretending it's in danger.

Are you for all future candidates releasing their tax information? Or do you care about money in politics at all? Because repubs keep talking about changing the culture in Washington, how Washington and pols are bad...then those same repubs fight tooth and nail to protect those same pols. You hate it and like it all at the same time.

Romney's tax returns were sufficient for the IRS, so that makes them "on the level". There are no specific allegations of wrong-doing that could be considered as "probable cause" to procure a warrant. The information taken wouldn't be used for any official function of the government, but rather released to the public in order to satisfy political curiosities.

Candidates do not give up their citizen rights in order to run for or to hold office. So, while it's traditional nowadays for candidates to release tax returns, they can't really be compelled if they refuse.

In terms of candidates who have "released only two years of tax returns", John McCain in the last election only released two.
Outrage over tax returns a replay of past campaigns | wtsp.com

Dimwits just looking for dirt when they know their man is dirtier. The dimwit defenders on here know they are wrong, they just can't admit it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Maybe now these nitwit wingers will shut the **** up, since it has been completely explained...

Odds are though, with these pre programmed robots, they'll start another thread on the same topic within the hour