Patterico's Pontifications

7/31/2012

Sen Hairy Reed’s Mendacity

Filed under: General — JD @ 3:49 pm

[Guest post by JD]

He is taking his talking points from tye.

We get the leadership we elect.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid might be the worst of our generation.

– JD

378 Responses to “Sen Hairy Reed’s Mendacity”

  1. Surreal

    JD (318f81)

  2. Some anonymous person claims something and Reid repeats it if true.

    An anonymous caller told me that Obama still eats puppies and salutes Stalin’s photograph.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  3. … as if true.

    Damn phone keyboard.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  4. One wonders how a mendacious—no make that mendoucheous–moral degenerate like Harry Reid rises to the top of the toilet bowl that’s the professional Democrat party.

    I mean this clown will say and do anything–true or untrue–justified or not–on any topic that floats to the top of his pointy little head.

    He’s an embarassment to the country.

    Comanche Voter (29e1a6)

  5. Romney may be a felon too. I heard someone suggest that as well.

    Obama REALLY, REALLY, REALLY does not want to talk about his record if this is the kind of distraction they have to put out.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  6. The comments at HuffPo are telling. They don’t give a damn whether it’s true or not. They are just gleeful that someone came up with something new to say bad about Romney. And they call themselves the “reality based community.” Bah.

    Cecil (5aba63)

  7. Reid is an utterly corrupt politician who will say and do anything to further his own interests. And he isn’t nearly the most corrupt example on the national stage at this point.

    Capitol Hill and K Street are filled with the likes of Harry Reid. With any luck, Reid will one day get exactly what he deserves for his corruption.

    Term limits on Congress would help solve some of this…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  8. to quote HRH, one lies and the other one swears to it.

    Reid is a mendoucheous twatwaffle and so is anyone who would vote for him or Ear Leader, our SCOAMF.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  9. From the vast emptiness of the skull, the mouth speaks.

    Coastal Eddie (6f5427)

  10. Reid has no time to pass a budget in four years but he has time to lie.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  11. President Obysmal…

    Colonel Haiku (251fea)

  12. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid might be the worst of our generation.
    You forget 8 years of GWB.

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  13. On Twitter, you hear the sneer;

    http://twitchy.com/2012/07/31/harryreidfacts-
    some-guy-totally-told-truther-harry-reid-a-thing-about-romneys-taxes-media-blindly-repeats/

    narciso (ee31f1)

  14. ==You forget 8 years of GWB==

    No. I’m pretty sure JD fully factored that in when he said Obama Pelosi and Reid might be the worst of our generation.

    elissa (1a6129)

  15. OT
    i encourage everyone to take a look at the “popular now” comments in this yahoo article about chick-fil-a protests. it will put a smile on your face :D

    razor419 (42f6c5)

  16. Elissa – yup. Not even close.

    JD (cfef43)

  17. Racists!

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  18. But it begs the question, why wouldn’t he reveal the said tax returns and put away this dark shadow on his political integrity? How does this help him?

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  19. There is no dark shadow on his integrity.

    JD (cfef43)

  20. Democrats lie, and that creates a “dark shadow”? Only in the weird fictional world of a troll.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  21. Romney should just call Reid’s bluff. Point out that there is nothing Reid won’t lie about in order to protect his candidate, as he announced on the Senate floor, no matter how stupid it is.

    That Reid is making up his fictitious investor, and in any case no investor would no Romney’s tax situation.

    You guys get copies of your mutual fund manager’s tax returns? Do you invest in stocks? Do you see the tax returns from the corporate officers?

    I’d take it one step further. I’d point out that I’ve never been audited by the IRS. But that I wouldn’t put it past the Obama administration to launch a politically motivated investigation, or several investigations by several agencies.

    Then I’d discuss how my donors have been similarly persecuted by the Obama administration for there perfectly legal political activities.

    Then I’d point out the case of Frank VanderSloot currently a target of Department of (In)Justice/Labor investigations which only were initiated after the Obama campaign began accusing him of being shady. Merely for being successful and supporting Romney.

    The DCCC has accused Sheldon Adelson of being a pimp. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DoJ launched a fishing expedition simply to make that charge appear true.

    After all they smuggled guns into Mexico to try to make it appear Obama’s charge that most guns used by the cartels come from US gun dealers appear true.

    Actually, if I were Romney I’d have Sununu do it. He’d tear the press’ throat out and have the Obama campaign/Reid begging for mercy inside of a week. Plus the Romney camp would be protecting more of his supporters from Obama administration harassment/persecution due to their political activities.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  22. You forgot to add Dick Durbin.

    Ipso Fatso (70a5bf)

  23. The Emperor – It puts a dark shadow on the intelligence of liberals that they are even willing to consider believing this anonymous, unsubstantiated, tripe.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. At lunch, a confidential informant told me that when The Chimperor aka lovie is not chasing tye, they both molest underage non-consensual goats.

    JD (cfef43)

  25. They put Tom Delay away.
    Pay back is a bitch, Harry.

    mg (44de53)

  26. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders wont release their tax returns. Probably to hide the insider trading Democratic leaders refuse to make illegal for themselves but is illegal for us.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  27. I heard – with my own ears – Harry Reid claim to be the inspiration for that Scorsese movie about teh Mob and gambling in Las Vegas… can’t say the title or it gets lost in the filter.

    He looks like Parson Turnip and he’s an effin’ liar.

    Colonel Haiku (251fea)

  28. casino

    Colonel Haiku (251fea)

  29. hey… it worked!

    Colonel Haiku (251fea)

  30. Now we know tye’s real name. Anybody want to check Reid’s Senate schedule vs. tye’s comments?

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  31. So you are saying that if the roles were to be reversed you would not be clamoring for his tax returns if he were a Democrat?

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  32. Real Democrat corruption, ignored. Faux Republican wrongdoing, “a dark stain”.

    Its laughable, if it wasn’t what passes for serious thought amongst the imbeciles that are Obama supporters.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  33. Obama hid his own birth certificate for four years, Emperor, you hypocritical twit.

    SPQR (6e06be)

  34. Yup, that’s what I’m saying Emperor. If somebody high up in the Republican Senate said this, we’d mock him too.

    Pious Agnostic (ee2c24)

  35. People hide things because they believe they can keep things hidden, and because they believe revealing things will cause more damage than hiding things. (BK and NR appear to be convinced of this.)

    This strategy should be a losing one for “Obama and Friends” as people as utterly corrupt as Obama and Reid and Wasserman-Schultz and Pelosi and Biden have a great deal to keep hidden.

    On the surface, the sum of everything Obama is hiding is almost certainly more damaging than virtually any tax records Romney might be hiding. Everybody knows that wealthy people can avoid paying taxes legally. Just ask all of the Kennedy’s…

    I suspect both Romney and Obama, et al. know this to be the case, so the game turns to spin.

    If Romney is half as smart as most people hope he is, he can maneuver this down to the wire and make this part of an October surprise. Allow Obama, et al. to build a crescendo of innuendo and accusation by continued demands on Romney to release tax and financial records through the summer and early fall. And then offer to release his records if Obama releases HIS records.

    Of course, this assumes Obama hasn’t destroyed all of his records by early September and hasn’t managed to leak all of Romney’s records by the same time.

    Unless Romney’s tax records reveal he was caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, he should most likely come out ahead in such a scenario…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  36. “So you are saying that if the roles were to be reversed you would not be clamoring for his tax returns if he were a Democrat?”

    Lovey – Obama’s a Democrat, look at how little he was forced to disclose and how little vetting he underwent before his election. Complete double standard.

    You’ve got nothing as usual.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  37. Obama released all his financial records. So what is your point exactly?

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  38. The point is you, Hairy Reed, and tye are lying liars.

    JD (cfef43)

  39. I think the bigger question should be, When Will Donald Trump Demand that Romney Show His Papers? 8)

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  40. Obama released all his financial records. So what is your point exactly?

    Comment by The Emperor — 7/31/2012 @ 5:51 pm

    I said nothing about Obama’s financial records. Go back and read my post very slowly and out loud several more times. This may help improve your reading comprehension…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  41. @dustin, lying about what? Only asking a legitimate question. I have not accused the candidate of any wrong doing.

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  42. @wareagle82, wasn’t really referring to you. Guess who needs a lesson in reading comprehension?

    The Emperor (dc5ae1)

  43. Only asking a legitimate question. I have not accused the candidate of any wrong doing.

    Lie.

    and put away this dark shadow on his political integrity?

    JD (cfef43)

  44. @wareagle82, wasn’t really referring to you. Guess who needs a lesson in reading comprehension?
    Comment by The Emperor — 7/31/2012 @ 6:04 pm

    Oh, forgive me. I should have pointed out you are an obviously inept writer instead. Ever so sorry for pointing out one of the less applicable of your numerous shortcomings, mate.

    Talk about a target rich environment though…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  45. @jd, show me evidence from any of my posts here that suggests I accused Romney of any wrong doing.

    @wareagle82, whatever mate.

    The Emperor (360b02)

  46. Only asking a legitimate question. I have not accused the candidate of any wrong doing.

    Lie.

    and put away this dark shadow on his political integrity?

    Ignoring it doesnt make it go away.

    JD (318f81)

  47. oops! my comment @41 was meant for jd’s @38. Could have sworn I saw dustin there.

    The Emperor (360b02)

  48. A contributor to Harry Reid’s campaign told me that he is a pederast that likes to molest 10 year old boys. I mean, I don’t know for sure, just putting that out there.

    David, infamous sockpuppet (df4742)

  49. @jd. So you are saying in effect that when you guys were asking questions about Obama’s birth cert. you were accusing him of being born in Ghana or Kenya and smuggled into America to become President? Is asking a question the same as making an accusation?

    The Emperor (360b02)

  50. “I can smell my gray old balls from up here. They smell like Gold Bond powder and shame.”

    - Sen. Harry Reid

    Colonel haiku (251fea)

  51. No, that is not what I am saying. You are trying to distract from the nonsense you and Hairy Reed and tye are peddling.

    JD (318f81)

  52. @jd. So you are saying in effect
    So what I have always said
    It has always been my position

    What do these all have in common, Lovie?

    JD (318f81)

  53. You asserted it is a dark stain on his integrity. Now you are trying to act like you didn’t.

    JD (318f81)

  54. @iowahawkblog: “If there’s anything the American public won’t abide, it’s someone who insults screaming reporters and Palestinians.”

    Colonel haiku (251fea)

  55. JD,

    Romney ran on his ability to manage companies and made money from the investments those activities provided

    Not releasing his returns isnt a plus – I’m not saying its a dark stain, shadow, but it is a big problem that will keep him out of the whitehouse

    EPWJ (c5f1fc)

  56. iowahawkblog “your search resulted in 61,500,000 results” http://t.co/y0vjJ5ei

    http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23HarryReidisaPederast

    Colonel Haiku (251fea)

  57. Whatevs, were that the case, not releasing a birth certificate that the Hillary supporters went after, college transcripts, records from the IL Senate, Annenberg Challenge, etc … would have kept the Lightworker and his unique skill set from ever getting to the White House.

    JD (318f81)

  58. Guess what, people?! Romney is rich. not as rich as Bieber. Not as rich as Letterman. Not as rich as Tiger. But rich.

    Given what they have lied about to date, and are lying about in the subject of this post, will not change with the release of more. It will simply give them more data points to distort, lie about, use for class warfare, and otherwise be asshats about.

    JD (318f81)

  59. So, tye had the day shift and the emperor has the night shift. They both have their lines pretty well rehearsed.

    I wish someone would ask Hairy Reid if he wears ”
    magic underwear”. The look on his face would be priceless, I’m sure.

    PatAZ (cbbf6d)

  60. @jd. Now you are projecting. The very words I used were something like his refusal to reveal his financial records casts a dark shadow on his political integrity. Meaning it will leave room for doubts and questions. I did not say this was a “dark stain” on his integrity. In what universe is dark shadow and dark stain the same thing? Dark stain would suggest I am accusing him of actually doing something to soil his integrity which is not the case here. I am just saying this is casting a dark shadow of doubt and questions about his political integrity. Something he doesn’t really need since his offering himself as a better alternative to Obama. He should not leave room for doubts. But you are free to spin this any way you choose. It’s what I have come to expect from folks like you.

    The Emperor (360b02)

  61. people, people. we must consider the seriousness of the charges not the evidence. after all, it is likely fake but true or some such thing.

    quasimodo (47ad5b)

  62. I wish someone would ask Hairy Reid if he wears ”magic underwear”. The look on his face would be priceless, I’m sure.
    Comment by PatAZ — 7/31/2012 @ 6:45 pm

    Please, not around suppertime! I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  63. The Emperor, it’s always interesting to me how people show up quite hostile towards me without much explanation.

    I basically explain this by the fact I have greatly angered a few folks who have admit using sockpuppets to smear and attack people.

    But obviously there is the random person who really is angry all the time for no reason. That’s one of the worst illnesses I could think of. It’s like cancer of the soul.

    Dustin (73fead)

  64. A dark shadow on your integrity is a compliment.
    A dark stain on your integrity is bad. Gotcha.

    JD (318f81)

  65. @dustin, maybe you should change your handle. :)

    The Emperor (360b02)

  66. A dark shadow on your integrity is a compliment.
    A dark stain on your integrity is bad. Gotcha.
    Comment by JD — 7/31/2012 @ 6:53 pm

    This stylistic approach and reasoning is evidently a bit too nuanced for the average person.

    But it really wows them at the Harvard Law Review where Obama was President, you know. Though you would be hard pressed to find any written record of Obama’s views while there…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  67. “Not releasing his returns isnt a plus – I’m not saying its a dark stain, shadow, but it is a big problem that will keep him out of the whitehouse”

    EPWJ – Sort of like Obama not releasing his birth certificate kept him out of the White House? Don’t think so.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. @dustin, maybe you should change your handle.

    Comment by The Emperor

    LOL. The thought has occurred to me, but I’m quite proud of my commentary and the only reason the ugliness bothers me is that I feel pity for people who behave that way.

    I’ve stood up for something good, and that naturally means enemies. It’s just the way the world works.

    Dustin (73fead)

  69. It’s so stupid and slanderous…as if some anonymous “investor” would actually know what’s contained in Romney’s tax returns.
    You know, cause Romney just runs around telling various “investors” all the details about his tax returns.

    Romney ran for Senate against Ted “If you’re drowning, don’t call me !” Kennedy in 1994. He ran the Olympics from ’99-02.
    He ran for President beginning in 2006.

    Where exactly is this window of opportunity to not pay any income taxes for a ten year period ? And why hasn’t any opposition research produced such evidence in the past ?

    I can’t wait until the stories about Harry Reid’s homoerotic crossdressing escapades are made public. Hey, I don’t know all the details—some guy just called me and told me that stuff.

    Apparently, Harry’s crossdressing ‘money shot’ is when he pleads with people to call him, “Tara Reid.”

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  70. @daley, stop comparing oranges and apples. As candidate in 2008, if Obama had not released his tax returns would he have made it to the white house?

    The Emperor (360b02)

  71. Natural born citizen is a constitutional requirement that Obama blew the American public off on, releasing tax returns isn’t.

    But Romney’s tax returns are more significant than Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate.

    That’s Obama supporter logic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. And Obama is still hiding the records regarding his real estate deals with Rezko, who was convicted of fraud and bribery and got 10 years in prison.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  73. The election is a referendum on Obama. Throw all the mud you want on Romney, it just doesn’t matter.

    kaf (81bcc7)

  74. The Emperor,

    I don’t think it would have mattered if Obama had not released his tax returns in 2008, not only because he was so popular that he could do no wrong, but also because Democrats and the media don’t seem to mind when liberal politicians are rich. Only rich Republicans matter to them.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  75. “As candidate in 2008, if Obama had not released his tax returns would he have made it to the white house?”

    Lovey – Did you know Obama ate a dog? I think that’s kind of gross.

    Who cares what Obama released in 2008? Did somebody demand he release 10 years of returns? If so, who?

    Apples and oranges is fine because the Obama campaign can declare he was transparent on one disclosure while being gigantic hypocrites all all the other disclosures he has hidden, lied about or white washed from his background. That’s the double standard and why it is relevant and why an opponent does not have to match what somebody did in a prior election. Suck it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  76. “if Obama had not released his tax returns would he have made it to the white house?”

    Obama could have release YOUR tax returns and still made it to the whitehouse; to do otherwise would have been racist and against ‘history’

    Lord Nazh (821ae1)

  77. What logic? The Democrat party is indistinguishable from organized crime. The sooner we realize that and act appropriately, the better.

    Rob Crawford (d8dade)

  78. Lovey – Did you know that DOJ political appointees interfered with the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and lied about it? I think the White House was involved too and it will come back to bite them. I’ll bet the same thing, cover up and lies happened with Fast and Furious.

    Romney’s tax returns are just the latest distraction from Team Obama. Nobody cares.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. Obama hides details of dealings with a convicted felon and slumlord, Rezko – no big deal.

    Obama appoints as his Secretary of the Treasury, a man who actually failed to pay his taxes – no big deal.

    Romney does not release a tax return – OHMYGOD!

    SPQR (26be8b)

  80. ==if Obama had not released his tax returns would he have made it to the white house?==

    You’re just going to have to trust me on this. Obama’s tax returns were at the bottom of the list of things people wanted to see in 2008. Higher on the list were: his rough drafts of Dreams From My Father, his applications to Harvard and Columbia, his college transcripts, the contract with Tony Reszco for the extra lot, his original BC, and the surveillance tape from Man’s Country.

    elissa (1a6129)

  81. The Rezko situation alone is far more troubling than pretty much anything one could say about Gov Romney. Imagine if it was Romney who benefited from that crook. What would the media be saying?

    The absurd double standard is why much of media is failing. Journalists need to get real about this and simply refuse to keep the democrat agenda on their minds as they select what to cover. It’s so easy, yet so many orgs fail to make this call.

    Dustin (73fead)

  82. Lovey – Did you know that Obama’s politicized DOJ and his usual group of special interest thug groups are actively working to prevent fair elections this fall so that Obama can get reelected by any means possible?

    Romney’s tax returns are a nothingburger.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. Also the Rashid Khalidi tape, elissa.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  84. Daley

    Obama didnt run on being born in Kenya, Romney ran on his prowlness as a businessman

    I cannot eplain why 53% voted for Obama but a wall streeter who refuses to release his returns isnt helping sway any of those 53% to his cause

    Obama is doing his best to throw away his chances for reelection with his true colors coming out of his very mouth

    but so apparently is Romney

    EPWJ (c5f1fc)

  85. “It’s so stupid and slanderous…as if some anonymous “investor” would actually know what’s contained in Romney’s tax returns.”

    Well at least it’s better than the “some people say” standard usually used by the media, but still anonymous and uncheckable.

    No wonder Lovey’s eating it up like a weasel on crack.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. Yes. Glad you added that, DRJ.

    elissa (1a6129)

  87. It’s even more complicated, than that;

    http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/02/rezko-auchi-and-obama.html

    narciso (ee31f1)

  88. Romney’s tax returns are a nothingburger.

    then release them

    EPWJ (c5f1fc)

  89. “but so apparently is Romney”

    EPWJ – I feel your pain.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  90. What everyone is missing is Reid never said which 10 years this fictitious investor who has no way of knowing how much Romney paid in taxes he is lying about when he claims Romney paid nothing.

    No matter how many records Romney releases they will claim those aren’t the years they are smearing him about with this obvious falsehood.

    Romney founded Bain Capital in 1984. Nearly 30 years. This gives Reid 3 decades to choose among when lying about which decade Romney didn’t pay taxes.

    Given the longest the IRS requires you to keep your filed tax returns (depending upon a variety of factors there are several other annual limits but if this situation doesn’t apply it is always much less) is 7 years if you claimed a loss on an asset or bad debt, and it’s stupid to keep records longer than you have too, Reid can claim that the years he’s talking about are for tax records Romney no longer possesses.

    Indeed he’d have to. No one, not even the biggest liar the democrats have managed to vomit forth to spew this bilious nonsense, has claimed Romney was with Bain in any capacity when he ran for and became Governor of Taxachussets in 2002. Ten years ago.

    You are simply not required to keep tax records that long. Not nearly long enough to cover Romney’s last year at Bain.

    This is a transparent, all-purpose lie. For anyone to be stupid enough to think Reid has a remotely serious point when he claims Romney needs to keep records covering the tax years he spent at Bain is beyond brain dead.

    Or do the trolls such as The Emperor have the germ of whatever passes for the evolutionary forerunner of what is called a thought in sentient beings rolling around in their empty skulls that Romney kept sending former investors his personal tax returns after he left the company for the Olympics and then the governorship?

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  91. Hey NV, if I had money I wouldn’t spend it with you.

    You suck.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  92. A guy on the street told me that Harry Reid is addicted to midget porn (NTTIAWT). I don’t know for sure, just putting that out there.

    David, infamous sockpuppet (df4742)

  93. @ DRJ,

    I don’t think it would have mattered if Obama had not released his tax returns in 2008, not only because he was so popular that he could do no wrong, but also because Democrats and the media don’t seem to mind when liberal politicians are rich. Only rich Republicans matter to them.

    I would suggest that not only are rich Republicans who matter most to the Democrats, but they are also the ones that matter because the default assumption remains the same: Republicans get rich through corruption and oppressing the poor. It is never through having a vision, persevering after a goal – in spite of the many hurdles – nor through toughc grit and hard work.

    IOW, it is impossible for Republicans to come by their wealth honestly.

    Dana (292dcf)

  94. Meanwhile, Obama’s intentional failure to deport criminal illegal aliens that are already in detention? Directed resulted in 19 murders in three years.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  95. I don’t think it would have mattered if Obama had not released his tax returns in 2008, not only because he was so popular that he could do no wrong, but also because Democrats and the media don’t seem to mind when liberal politicians are rich. Only rich Republicans matter to them.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/31/2012 @ 7:22 pm

    hmmm… I wouldn’t say Obama won the election mainly because of his overwhelming “popularity” as you put it. If memory still serves I think it had a lot to do with people’s anger with GWB and need for something different. Yes he was popular but that wouldn’t have saved him from something as foolhardy as assuming he could get away with hiding his financial records from the American voters. But I agree with you to a point.

    The Emperor (f3ef9a)

  96. BootBlack has inked Slick to place his name in nomination.

    That is one desperate bagman. Bet they pipe in canned applause.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  97. Mitt Romney is not obligated to reveal his tax returns to anyone.
    If he had broken any laws, the IRS would have pounced on him years ago.

    He’s not showing the tax returns because he knows there are a lot of Americans who are jealous and spiteful of successful people.

    The lefties will always get on their knees in the “ready position” for a man who refuses to show his paper birth certificate, refuses to show his college transcripts, refuses to explain why his Social Security number corresponds with someone who was issued the number in Connecticut rather than Hawaii, refuses to show his college loans records, refuses to show his thesis papers, refuses to show his medical records, refuses to show his manuscripts for each of the two books that Bill Ayres and John Favreau actually wrote, refuses to show the visitor log books at the White House, refuses to show the documents pertaining to Fast and Furious, refuses to show documents pertaining to the film about the Bin Laden raid,…the list goes on and on.

    And I don’t recall any lefties calling for John Forbes Kerry Heinz to release his tax records—he and his foreign born billionaire wife have more money than Romney does.

    It’s just so predictable about the lefties that they don’t believe a person should have to be a citizen or have to provide photo ID in order to vote, BUT, if your name appears on the ballot with an (R) next to it, you better provide your tax returns going back to 1937 !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  98. 96. “that wouldn’t have saved him from something as foolhardy as assuming he could get away with hiding his financial records from the American voters”

    The irony meter just levelled the building and blocks around. Must’a been a critical mass.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  99. Romney’s reason for not releasing more tax information is that he doesn’t want the Democrats to use the info therein against him. Hello? What is he hiding?

    The Emperor (70e7a9)

  100. assuming he could get away with hiding his financial records from the American voters.

    He is hiding nothing. He released 2010. He released his estimated 2011 and will supplement when finalized. There will never be enough for the Leftists.

    JD (318f81)

  101. 100. Gallup has Donk enthusiasm down 22 points and GOP’s up 16 over 2008.

    Romney doesn’t need to release, he’s sitting in the catbird seat.

    Congress is rubber stamping budget extension. There is nothing hanging over Willard’s head where Bumblef*ck sleeps in a hardened silo.

    Or doesn’t sleep.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  102. Shorter Chimperor – you are hiding something, and I know this because you won’t give me what I ask for. Me and mine have lied about his record, and we really just want more data points to lie about and distort. What are you hiding?

    JD (318f81)

  103. It isn’t illegal to be rich in America. But Obama is working on it…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  104. Cruz won by 11, PPP had it called, wonders never cease.

    That’s practically a flip right there, Kay Bailey gone.

    WI is no longer going to Thompson, a three way finish.

    Barky is going to hurt his party good.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  105. Dem bill would require 10 years of tax disclosures by presidential candidates

    I realize idiots like the Emperor are going to keep up with this stupidity as if they and Reid somehow have a point that bears in any way upon reality.

    Reid is simply spreading a lie he knows only Obamabots are stupid enough to believe.

    The IRS does not even require you to keep more than 7 years worth of returns; that would mean he would have his returns from 2005 through 2011.

    Reid introduced this showboating, blatantly unconstitutional bill (since the Constitution sets the requirements for a Presidential candidate, and Reid can’t tack any of his idiotic additions on) that would have required him to release his returns back to the one he filed for the 2002 tax year. The year he officially retired from Bain and was running for governor.

    That still doesn’t get you back to any of the years when Romney was actively managing Bain. It certainly doesn’t get you far enough back to “prove” this negative that Reid farted to the press.

    I realize that the Emperor will go along with however much these liars will continue to move the goalposts like the zombie penguin-brained emperor he is, but all the trolls are doing is proving Romney right.

    No matter how many returns Romney releases it will never be enough. 10 years? Not enough. Not enough to disprove this latest lie.

    Reid will move the goalposts again and zombie Emperor will again bleat:

    Hello? What is he hiding?

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  106. JD, I believe you should alter the title of your original post to Sen Hairy Reed’s/The Emperor’s Mendacity.

    The emperor is putting on a fine display of it.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  107. The Emperor, Obama hid his birth certificate for four years. What was he hiding?

    And why hasn’t Obama released the records from his real estate deal with convicted felon, and Obama bagman, Rezko?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. @ Gary,

    Cruz won by 11, PPP had it called, wonders never cease..

    Did you see that Cruz had Chick Fil A served at his victory party? Heh.

    Dana (292dcf)

  109. 108. Actually, he’s prolly still hiding it. An authentic certificate has not been produced. Hawaii’s official certificate is a digital Photoshop.

    A pair of twins had certificates from like August 10th were issued from microfilm a few years prior and Obama’s followed their’s in numeric sequence. Was he born at home in the bathtub?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  110. 109. And the libs tweeting that TEAs are freaking mongols, actually proud of being H8rs.

    All politics are local but it would seem TEAs are undead in TX.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  111. 108. The Emperor, Obama hid his birth certificate for four years. What was he hiding?

    And why hasn’t Obama released the records from his real estate deal with convicted felon, and Obama bagman, Rezko?

    Comment by SPQR — 7/31/2012 @ 8:40 pm

    Legitimate questions, but let’s not even go that far back. The WH accused Richard Miniter of “fabricating” the story that Valerie Jarrett told Obama not to approve the raid on OBL’s compound three times contained in his soon-to-be released book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.

    In addition to observing that his sources may go public if Obama continues to lie about it, Miniter has fired back and called on the WH house to release records supporting their version of the timeline if they think they can prove him wrong.

    They won’t. They have something to hide. The fact that Obama’s lying about his role in the raid in order to campaign on a lie.

    Why not release the records if they support Obama’s version of events? National security? Don’t make me laugh. Obama compromised national security for all sorts of self-serving reasons when it suited him and simultaneously harmed US interests (might as well kill two birds with one stone while pursuing his personal and professional goals as a Marxist saboteur).

    From compromising the identities of the SEAL team members who pulled off the raid to releasing an insane amount of detail about our drone operations so he could pretend he’s “President kill list” to blowing the cover of a British double agent to brag about the underwear bomber to demolishing what until that point had been an effective cyberwarfare operation against the Iranian program to…

    Well you get the point. Plus Miniter’s information had already been independently confirmed over a year ago immediately after the raid.

    I’m sure the trolls will want to know what Obama’s hiding. Not.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  112. This chaff was released today, in order to obscure this speech;

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/31/mitt-romney-russia-faltering-putin

    narciso (ee31f1)

  113. In an appearance at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland argued that he could openly speculate as to whether Romney “is a tax avoider” or “cheat” because “his behavior invites such speculation.”

    Thank you Mr Strickland for agreeing that it’s fair to openly speculate that 0bama got a Fulbright scholarship to Occidental College, that his Columbia scores were not enough to have got a white student into Harvard, that his education was paid for by the Ayers family and/or Saudis, that he’s in very poor health, etc. And that for several years it was perfectly fair to speculate that he was born in Kenya. After all, his behavior invites such speculation. No?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  114. Gaff, gaff, gaff.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  115. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid might be the worst of our generation.
    You forget 8 years of GWB.
    Comment by The Emperor — 7/31/2012 @ 4:51 pm

    – Umbday.

    It seems that, as November approaches, lovey has emerged from hibernation . . . and there was much rejoicing.

    Yay.

    Icy (f9cb18)

  116. Its pretty clear that the Democrats intend for this to be the dirtiest presidential campaign in modern history.

    Callendar in his grave approves.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  117. What the hell–in Obama’s Washington, The Bamster already has copies of Romney’s tax returns sitting on Axelrod’s desk.

    And somebody told me–but I can’t reveal his name–that his third cousin twice removed once thought he saw Harry Reid and Jerry Sandusky partying together at a Cub Scout convention on one of Dingy Harry’s campaign visits to Penn State. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but somebody told me.

    Highly Skeptical (29e1a6)

  118. Meanwhile, Buzzfeed observes that the actual content of the Obama campaign emails get dumber and dumber.

    I’d noticed this too, as I get emails from the Obama campaign in my email account. The reading level drops, along with the level of thought. Its like they are dumbing down their emails – which tells you something about what they think of their own supporters.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  119. As candidate in 2008, if Obama had not released his tax returns would he have made it to the white house?

    Why not? After all, he refused to release his medical records, and that didn’t seem to hurt him. He refused to release his educational records, his real estate records, his birth certificate, his state congressional records, pretty much anything at all. Even tax returns, how many years did he release in 2008? I wasn’t paying attention. Was it 12? If not, why should Romney release that many? I’m still waiting for Kerry to release his military records!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  120. Higher on the list were: his rough drafts of Dreams From My Father, his applications to Harvard and Columbia, his college transcripts, the contract with Tony Reszco for the extra lot, his original BC, and the surveillance tape from Man’s Country.

    Also the Rashid Khalidi tape.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  121. #84, Snap!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  122. Yes he was popular but that wouldn’t have saved him from something as foolhardy as assuming he could get away with hiding his financial records from the American voters.

    He didn’t release his financial records. Specifically the contract with Rezko.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  123. ==Its pretty clear that the Democrats intend for this to be the dirtiest presidential campaign in modern history==

    And yet this is so the opposite of what most Americans want from their president. The casual voters who in 2008 innocently voted for “Hope and Change”, and for “there’s no red states or blue states–just the United States” are the ones Obama’s lost or losing with his campaign’s shrill tone, viciousness and hate. These are the non- zealot voters I’m talking about, the voters who just want everybody to get along and want to be safe and have a job and feel proud of their country. These are the voters who often make up their minds at the last minute but are numerous enough that they can easily swing an election. It continually amazes me that the Dems are so blind to this phenomenon–that many voters see the Obama 2012 campaign as a shock, and a big bait and switch from the man they thought he was and voted for last time. This is why Obama’s personal appeal poll numbers are plummeting.

    elissa (1a6129)

  124. Reid makes up stuff by pulling it out of his ass (with this lame “someone told me …” excuse) and Democrats run around the ‘net acting as if it was true.

    That’s what it means to be a Democrat these days, cheerfully repeat incompetent lies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  125. CNN Money – Calling BS on Reid’s Bain tax claims: Harry Reid is either a liar or a lousy critical thinker.

    Let me make this crystal clear: Investors in private equity funds do not receive, nor are they entitled to request, personal tax returns for fund managers. Not just at Bain Capital, but everywhere. For example, ask the person managing your 401(k) for their personal tax returns. See how far you get.

    What makes this particular claim even sillier, of course, is that Romney hasn’t even been managing Bain funds for the past 10 years (no matter when you believe he left the firm). He’s been a silent investor like Harvard and MIT. Think the guy managing private equity for Harvard can get the personal tax returns of the guy managing private equity for MIT? Yes, that’s another rhetorical question.

    And just to close the circle, it also isn’t possible that Reid’s source was someone within Bain because partner tax returns are not prepared or reviewed in the firm’s offices. Instead, that’s done at PricewaterhouseCoopers. So no “maybe someone found it on a fax machine” theories.

    If even CNN isn’t biting, then this thing won’t have legs except to make Reid look like a demented old fool.

    Of course, Reid needs to release his medical records to prove he’s not being treated from dementia or some other mental illness that would compel him to blurt out this idiocy for publication.

    If he doesn’t release his medical records how will these rumors concerning him and his mental illnesses ever go away. What’s he hiding?

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  126. Someone showed me a professionally printed brochure from a literary agency representing Obama twenty years ago, that actually lists Obama’s birth country as “Kenya.”

    Oh. Wait. This anecdote doesn’t follow with the rest of the alleged anecdotes in this thread…because unlike Harry “Former Mob Consigliore” Reid’s alleged anecdote about a random phone call pertaining to Romney’s tax recrods, THIS actually happened !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  127. The voices in my head told me that Harry Reid likes to sniff his own farts. I don’t know for sure, just putting that out there.

    David, infamous sockpuppet (df4742)

  128. Off topic: convictions in actual voter fraud … remember, the fraud that Democrats claim is a myth?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  129. Elephant Stone, indeed Obama’s own press kit as an author listed his birthplace as Kenya for many years.

    It was clearly not an accidental thing. Obama has been lying in one form or another for many years.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  130. I heard Harry Reed wears women’s undergarments but I don’t personally know. So maybe he should show them to us.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  131. Harry abuses farm animals, especially donkeys.

    mg (44de53)

  132. I believe in this case Reid’s desperate idiocy he’s selling to the standardless shameless gossip mongerers (also known as the MFM) is prompted by more than panic over just Obumble’s dwindling election prospects. His party is staring into the abyss of a blowout. Here’s what his story was meant to distract from:

    Republicans: Obama administration hiding big job losses from sequester

    The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner that guarantees the economy will crater before the elections. And they’re running out of ways to blame the Republicans for it, since in this case everyone knows that they’ve wanted to defund the DoD for decades out of pure ideological hatred, and they’re about to get slapped in the face with 100s of thousands of workers getting pink slips days before the November election as a result of their machinations.

    Republicans accused the Obama administration Tuesday of intimidating defense contractors and seeking to hide job losses from pending cuts to the Pentagon’s budget in order to help the president’s reelection campaign.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republicans pointed to guidance issued Monday by the Department of Labor that said it would be “inappropriate” for defense firms to issue layoff notices to employees before the election due to the pending cuts.

    “The president doesn’t want people reading about pink slips in the weeks before his election, so the White House is telling people to keep the effects of these cuts secret — ‘Don’t tell anybody,’ he says, ‘keep it a secret’ — until, of course, after the election,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

    The Democrats are ineptly trying to accuse the Republicans of playing politics by “politicizing” these job losses. Imagine that; talking about the inevitable job losses that the Democrats intend to create is “playing politics” if they’re doing so in order to force them to take action to prevent the job losses.

    WTFO?

    Then accusing the DoL of attempting to intimidate employers not to follow the law (the WARN act) is playing politics.

    When the DoL’s own WARN act fact sheet says that employers must give at least 60 days notice to employees, only certain exemptions to the 60 day rule are available to employers, such as those are taken by surprise by “unforeseeable business circumstances” which layoffs due to sequestration most certainly are not, and that employers who do not comply with the WARN act are liable to employees who don’t get ample warning. In this case that would add up to millions of dollars for companies like Lockheed Martin.

    In fact the DoL is playing politics. It is departing from it’s past policies to issue this advice to employers not to notify employees they’ll be laid off prior to the election.

    The DoL does not enforce the WARN act. District Courts do. So in the past their advice to employers has been “when in doubt warn.” Their advice is worthless in the case of a lawsuit as they’re not the judge and they’ve never advised employers not to give notice 60 days in advance before.

    Until the same DoL that is investigating the labor practices of Obama’s political enemies for partisan purposes needed to pull Obama’s bacon out of the fire over the WARN act as well.

    The politicized DoL is violating it’s own stated operating principles when giving this specific advice to employers in this specific situation:

    The Department of Labor, since it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under WARN, cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.

    This and some other bills that are coming due have put the Democrats on notice that the sky is really falling, and we can expect chicken littles like Reid, Pelosi, and Obama to become increasingly unhinged in their attempts to distract the voting public from the cliff they’re driving us over as the election approaches.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  133. A farmer I know tells me that Harry Reid practices animal husbandry. At least, he did until they caught him at it. I don’t know for sure, just putting that out there.

    (Apologies to Tom Lehrer).

    David, infamous sockpuppet (df4742)

  134. Was Harry Reid recently given a shot of Gardasil?

    MayBee (fb7121)

  135. Famous! Thanks biff!

    tye (eb442d)

  136. This story is gaining traction. Now we’ve got a source. Hey Chuck, want my proof? How about a story posted by our very own biff-squeek? Thanks for backing me up!

    tye (eb442d)

  137. Hey Chuck, want my proof? How about a story posted by our very own biff-squeek?

    Good God, you are an idiot. This story isn’t proof of anything. Harry Reid has claimed that someone told him this. There’s no proof that Harry’s story is true, nor is there any evidence to show how the investor would know Romney’s tax status.

    It’s nothing but hot air, and you should know better than to claim it as backing you up.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  138. 138- hmm so you agree that hotair is BS? Beautiful.

    tye (eb442d)

  139. MayBee – Hairy Reed and tye got the Tardasil

    JD (cfef43)

  140. The link above is to HuffPo, not Hot Air, so tye is just making shlt up, again.

    JD (cfef43)

  141. 138- hmm so you agree that hotair is BS?

    Again, you show your lack of good faith. “Hot air” is BS. But that’s not the same as hotair.com. I have no opinion about hotair.com.

    You know the difference, now you’re just being an ass.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  142. 130 right on cue easy cheese! I trust an insider at bain more than I trust hotair.

    tye (eb442d)

  143. I can’t agree whether tye lets Amanda Marcotte use a strap-on on him or whether it prefers
    Wonkette’s ping-pong balls.

    nk (875f57)

  144. Hey, how about publicizing Harry Reid’s dirty deals enriching his kids? tye, go bury yourself in NV desert.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  145. That’s awfully gay imagery nk. Supress much?

    tye (eb442d)

  146. All the time.

    nk (875f57)

  147. You’re out of you league, gosling.

    nk (875f57)

  148. tye,

    Got a picture of yourself in thigh-highs and spike heels?

    nk (875f57)

  149. Well you guys enjoy keeping the economy sluggish by not doing your actual jobs while at work. I’ve got stuff to do.

    tye (eb442d)

  150. 150- sent one to biff. He asked for it offline. Ask him to see it.

    tye (eb442d)

  151. 150- sent one to biff. He asked for it offline. Ask him to see it.

    Lie

    JD (cfef43)

  152. Now, now, tye, don’t be two-timing me. I want an original.

    nk (875f57)

  153. I trust an insider at bain more than I trust hotair.

    This insider may not even exist outside of Harry Reid’s imagination.

    Stop being an ass. (Which, in your case, is likely an order for you to cease to exist. The average IQ of the world will increase if that should happen.)

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  154. Hmm. Speaking of mendacity, what do people here suspect is tye’s employment?

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  155. The phrase that is going to get a workout this election season is “And the Obama campaign reaches a new low …”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  156. Simon Jester, tye is idle because middle school does not start for a couple of weeks in his district. He didn’t get his summer homework because he was held back in sixth grade.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  157. Comment by SPQR — 7/31/2012 @ 4:16 pm

    Some anonymous person claims something and Reid repeats it if true.

    The anonymous person would have no way of knowing this, Bain investor or not.

    And whatever happened to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is supposed to prevent that? I notice that Harry Reid doesn’t give any explanation as to how it was even possible. (to do this for ten years. One year, it’s been claimed, huge losses in the fall of 2008 could do that, but I’m not sure. Capital losses I think can only be deducted against capital gains, and beyond that, just $3,000, an amount that has never been adjusted for inflation, I think)

    I guess Harry Reid figures he doesn’t have much credibility anyway, or on;y people to whom his credibility does not matter will care what he says.

    An anonymous caller told me that Obama still eats puppies and salutes Stalin’s photograph.

    To be the same thing, it’s got to be anonymous old college friend.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  158. 112. Obama stated at the time that he’d delayed it a few times – he wanted to be sure it was bin Laden and he wanted to be sure that they’d gotten bin Laden. The plan was even changed from a bomb to a raid.

    The only thing new in the book is that the questions are attributed to Valerie Jarrett, instead of Obama, and the way it is told now, in shorthand, it is like Obama backed down at the last minute three times, which he probably didn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  159. Well you guys enjoy keeping the economy sluggish by not doing your actual jobs while at work. I’ve got stuff to do.
    Comment by tye — 8/1/2012 @ 6:45 am

    – Of course you do. Well, keep scrubbing!

    I hear that after five years they give you a brush.

    Icy (f9cb18)

  160. Elissa: “…his original BC, and the surveillance tape from Man’s Country.”

    What are these last two?>

    BC = ???

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  161. Finkelman, how do you know that Obama didn’t? A denial from the White House has been shown to be worthless.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  162. We have laws about taxes and we have laws about personal financial disclosure when running for President.

    Romney has complied with the law, at least as far as I know, including providing the tax forms required.

    If democrats think there should be a requirement for ten years of tax forms for candidates for federal office, they should pass a bill to that effect. One that applies to everyone.

    What they are instead doing is coming up with a requirement no one has ever heard of, and saying Romney’s failure to abide by it must mean he’s guilty. It’s absurd.

    Reid’s hearsay from someone who wouldn’t actually know what is claimed is particularly dishonorable. He knows quite well that his story is untrue.

    Reid should ask himself why his best defense of Obama’s record is to be malicious towards Romney. That’s what’s really going on here.

    Dustin (73fead)

  163. Dustin, financial disclosure laws for Presidential candidates are unconstitutional. Candidates comply for political reasons only.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  164. SPQR, you are absolutely correct about that.

    Dustin (73fead)

  165. “I’ve got stuff to do.”

    tye – Run out of lotion again? Try raw dog aversion therapy. Psychiatrists are very high on that right now for curing your problem.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  166. The whole Obama campaign is to distract voters from this simple fact – the worst recovery from recession in two generations.

    But what else can one expect from the worst President in a century?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  167. Though I don’t mind candidates disclosing a lot of information about themselves to be transparent.

    I don’t think it’s a good idea to let one’s most dishonest detractors set the terms, for example for Reid to say jump and Romney to ask how high. Once the ten year taxes were released and nothing was on them, Reid would come up with a new requirement, and jerks would say it proves guilt for Romney not to comply like he did the last time.

    It’s an endless witchhunt. I like the idea of a baseline norm level of disclosure that is complied with more consistently, such as the unconstitutional requirement for two years of taxes. Obviously someone refusing that requirement is still legally able to be elected president.

    But we know a lot about Romney. He’s not an enigma. It’s obvious he made tons of money and used the law to his advantage when paying taxes, like anyone savvy would. Democrats realize that Romney’s tax forms will show a very wealthy man paying a low percentage. And in some years, probably not having earned income due to write offs. They think they can bully Romney into giving them this story if they come up with a far harsher (and dishonest) version of what happened.

    Personally, I think the class warfare idea is a bad strategy for democrats in an election that is all about getting America back on economic track. But what else do they have to run on?

    Dustin (73fead)

  168. Who pays a lower tax rate, Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  169. We know where Romney obtained his wealth, we know where he’s gotten paid. There is no mystery there at all. There is nothing in his tax returns that would speak to his fitness for office at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  170. And of course, unlike the Clinton’s or the Obama’s, its pretty clear that Romney is going to be bought off. He’s not looking at the office to make himself wealthy as the Clinton’s and Obama’s obviously are.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  171. Hmm. Speaking of mendacity, what do people here suspect is tye’s employment?

    Comment by Simon Jester — 8/1/2012 @ 7:26 am

    Floor scrubber at a gay peep show?

    Or maybe, pivot man in a circle jerk?

    peedoffamerican (606d27)

  172. Who pays a lower tax rate, Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney?

    Comment by daleyrocks

    I doubt it’s much different. Both of them have paid far more in taxes than anyone we’re likely to meet today.

    And if someone is interested in a change to the law on taxes, they should pass a bill instead of acting like it’s a scandal for someone to follow the law. I think cap gains taxes are unfair to start with and the USA over charges corporate taxes in a way that holds our country back, and that those fixating on one person’s success are not serious about the policy issue.

    Dustin (73fead)

  173. 160. 112. Obama stated at the time that he’d delayed it a few times – he wanted to be sure it was bin Laden and he wanted to be sure that they’d gotten bin Laden. The plan was even changed from a bomb to a raid.

    The only thing new in the book is that the questions are attributed to Valerie Jarrett, instead of Obama, and the way it is told now, in shorthand, it is like Obama backed down at the last minute three times, which he probably didn’t.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 8/1/2012 @ 9:15 am

    There is nothing new in the book.

    1. It would be misleading to say Obama backed down at the last minute. He never in fact formed an opinion from which he could back down from. Valerie Jarrett wouldn’t allow him to have an opinion.

    2. It was changed from a bombing mission to a raid on the compound because that was what Valerie Jarrett told Obama to tell Panetta. She cooked that up as a delaying tactic; she calculated that it would take time for Panetta at CIA and the military planners at DoD to muster the forces, the support, and plan the mission and allow her to come up with more reasons to have her Presidential puppet stall the mission.

    3. Obama is not being truthful when he says he wanted to be sure OBL was in the compound. That was just one objection that concerned Jarrett. She was also concerned about collateral damage, offending the Pakistanis, offending the wider muslim world, and Obama’s political future if the mission didn’t come off successfully. This is why President Gusty Call plays this up so ridiculously as his success instead of that of troops on the ground who planned and trained to pull it off. Valerie Jarrett planted so much fear and doubt in his mind that he actually believes he’s the most heroic figure in the whole episode.

    163. A denial from the White House has been shown to be worthless.

    Comment by SPQR — 8/1/2012 @ 9:20 am

    This is true; the weather excuse for calling one of the missions off has been shown by two sources to be a complete lie from the WH. Of course, that is not the only demonstrable lie coming out of the WH. Almost every single accusation he spits at Romney has been demonstrated to be a lie, and just about every claim he’s ever made about himself, from what he wrote in his autobiography, to how he promoted his biography, to what he said about his legislative record in Illinois and the US Senate, to his claims about his record as President, has been proven to be a lie.

    So we shouldn’t be surprised when he directs his WH to lie about the timeline of the OBL raid:

    This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious…

    This anonymous source first went public with his story in May 2011. The blog that broke the story for him republished the interview in April 2012.

    Miniter in his soon-to-be-released book did check the facts for himself. And the Air Force Meteorological Service report confirms what this anonymous source said back in 2011. The WH excuse that the mission had to be delayed due to weather is complete BS.

    King Putt, Valerie Jarrett’s lap dog, is lying again.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  174. Dan Primack of Fortune lowered the boom on Reid’s effort to slander Romney with weaponized gossip: “One of two things has happened: (1) Reid is simply making the whole thing up, in order to pressure Romney into releasing tax returns for years prior to 2010, or (2) Reid’s investor pal lied, and the Senator didn’t bother to conduct even a mild vetting before sharing the accusation with reporters. Either way, shame on gossipy gentleman from Nevada.”
    “Let me make this crystal clear,” Primack continued. “Investors in private equity funds do not receive, nor are they entitled to request, personal tax returns for fund managers. Not just at Bain Capital, but everywhere. For example, ask the person managing your 401(k) for their personal tax returns. See how far you get.”

    Primack went on to note that Romney hasn’t even been managing Bain funds for the past ten years, and that Bain doesn’t prepare tax returns for its partners in-house, so Reid’s source couldn’t be someone who just happened to find Romney’s tax returns lying on a fax machine. Not that it seems terribly likely that a prosperous executive risking gigantic penalties, and possibly jail time, by cheating on his taxes for ten years would leave the evidence that could destroy him lying on a fax machine at the office.

    Amusingly, when Primack rang up Harry Reid’s office to challenge his wild claims, a staffer told him to interview Reid’s anonymous source… who, of course, Reid will not identify.

    JD (cfef43)

  175. 175. David Petraeus wanted a ground raid because iof the intelligence (while Defense Secretary Robert gates was for a bomb)

    This was a very good decision, but collecting intelligence doesn’t seem to have been much if any of a factyor in Obama’s thinking. They almost had to do it in spite of him.

    And they really should have tried to capture bin laden alive.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  176. Sammy, yes there were differences of opinion within military/intelligence circles about the best way to get OBL.

    The point is that when Obama finally came down on the side of those advocating a ground raid on the compound he didn’t do it because the military/intel types advocating it had converted him to their cause.

    He did it because Valerie Jarrett told him that was the best way to kick the can down the road. She reckoned the bombing plan was ready to go, but that everyone would have to go back to the drawing board if Obama switched things up.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  177. The book “Simplexity” by Jeffrey Kruger (Hyoperion 2008) quotes David Axelrod on page 103 as saying

    “..Such moments animate an existing storyline. Simple things that confirm what people are already thinking abouyt a acndidate have greater impact than bigger, more surprising things that would cause them to reconsider entirely what they believe.”

    He’s simply trying to create a storyline of Romney as rich white guy who doesn’t care about anybody except maybe people as rich as himself.

    They figured Romney’s was relying on “businessman who can fix things” and they wanted to replace that with a different idea.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  178. And they really should have tried to capture bin laden alive.

    Just so you know, the SEALs would have taken him alive if at all possible. That was their mission.

    The WH claims that they ordered a hit is complete horseshit. The SEALs wouldn’t have done it if it were purely an assassination mission.

    This is another reason the SF community has formed two PACs dedicating to defeating Obama. The snake-eaters are madder than snakes that Obama’s opened them up to prosecution by some court claiming international jurisdiction as murderers and not lawful combatants.

    Obama will sacrifice not only the truth but anyone he feels like for his own personal gain. Your observation indicates just another example of how badly Obama has harmed national security.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  179. Comment by daleyrocks — 8/1/2012 @ 9:37 am

    Is that before or after the Billion$ that Warren/BH and the IRS are fighting about?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  180. On the subject of Romney’s wealth, perhaps his acceptance speech at the GOP Convention would be a good time to announce that he will be a Dollar-A-Year man while in the Oval Office, and that the First-Lady will forego any and all multi-million Dollar vacations (that should save at least what the Housekeeping Budget is for the WH).

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  181. Romney didn’t take a salary while Massachusetts Governor.

    But saying he wouldn’t take any money as president would just highlight his wealth and enable the Obama campaign to more easily raise questions as to where he is getting his money from.

    Look what they did – are still doiung – with Cheney and Haliburton when Cheney cut all of his ties when he ran for Vice President and had no stake in it any more (except maybe that it would not go bankrupt and be able to pay its debts and I;m not sure about that.)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  182. Comment by Steve57 — 8/1/2012 @ 11:13 am

    The point is that when Obama finally came down on the side of those advocating a ground raid on the compound he didn’t do it because the military/intel types advocating it had converted him to their cause.

    He did it because Valerie Jarrett told him that was the best way to kick the can down the road.

    Because that hadn’t been planned out? They were wqorking on it since the summer of 2010. Of course they could always rehearse more and better.

    She reckoned the bombing plan was ready to go, but that everyone would have to go back to the drawing board if Obama switched things up.

    Do we knwow that.

    Incidentally there really wasn’t any reason tro doubt it was bi Laden – if not it could only be someoine else connected with him, and they would find out pretty soon if he wasn’t there.

    On January 5, 2008, Obama had said:

    Charles Gibson of ABC News: …..And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

    SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August [2007] I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you’ve got a legitimate government that we’re working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

    What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike……

    MR. GIBSON: I’m going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

    SEN. OBAMA: No, that — that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.

    If Valerie Jarrett stopped him, it was over the issue of whether or not he had actionable intelligence. (Obama, note, in this debate was distinguishing this from Iraq, on the grounds that Iraq had been only a potential threat)

    Note also that Gibson defined what the “Bush doctrine” was, and he did that aklso in the Republican debate in New Hampshire – he did not do that later that years for Sarah Palin.

    I thought the “Bush doctrine” was almost an invention of ABC News, but I found a (damaged copy) of the New York Sun newspaper – I don’t have too many issues left I think whose headline goes [Thursday, November 9, 2006. Vol 12 No 145]

    And here it is online:

    http://www.nysun.com/national/rumsfeld-resignation-bodes-end-of-bush-doctrine/43215/

    It doesn’t really define it though.

    Rumsfeld Resignation Bodes End of Bush Doctrine.

    The book “Simplexity” by Jeffrey Kruger (Hyoperion 2008

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  183. I’m sending these messages too soon.

    “Rumsfeld Resignation Bodes End of Bush Doctrine” is the Thursday, November 9, 2006 New York Sun headline.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  184. The book The book “Simplexity” by Jeffrey Kruger (Hyperion 2008) contains a quotation from David Axelrod (identified as “Democratic political strategist David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Senatir Barack Obama”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1DtJPcCl168C&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=david+axelrod+Simplexity&source=bl&ots=tTZMOxtlDb&sig=ElZJIESkbQlUSB8L1o7_8uYb40Q&hl=en#v=onepage&q=david%20axelrod%20Simplexity&f=false

    And here is something this year from David Axelrod specifically about Romney:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/15/axelrod-romney-message-is-im-not-barack-obama-therefore-elect-me/

    He says Romney’s message is:

    “I’m not Barack Obama, therefore elect me,” David Axelrod said of the campaign messaging. “And I’m a businessman, so I know how to fix the economy…”

    Somewhere there’s a quote either by him or about him as to what he (or the Obama campaign) wants to wants to replace it with.

    Anyway it is not necessary that people believe every little thing. He’s trying to gte people into a frame of mind where whatever fits into the narrative of “rich businessman who doesn’t care or know anything about anyone not in the top tax bracket” will be remembered.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  185. He did it because Valerie Jarrett told him that was the best way to kick the can down the road.

    Because that hadn’t been planned out? They were wqorking on it since the summer of 2010. Of course they could always rehearse more and better.

    Jarrett and Obama were kept in the dark about how far along the plan was.

    She reckoned the bombing plan was ready to go, but that everyone would have to go back to the drawing board if Obama switched things up.

    Do we knwow that.

    I suppose “we” will never know that. The people who do know that with a certainty have formed PACs to defeat Obama. Actions speak louder than words. Especially when the words required to tell the “we” that are the larger public can not be spoken. Not without breaking the law.

    The Obama administration thinks it’s a jim dandy idea to shoot their mouths off and put a Pakistani doctor who aided us in prison for thirty years. What’s one man’s life compared to Obama’s reelection?

    The SF guys who formed the PACs I’m referring to think otherwise. Their lives depend upon intelligence developed from people like that Pakistani doc if they’re going to go into Injun’ country and expect to both be successful and come back. Not their reelection. And Obama has guaranteed there will be almost no one in the future who’ll act like that gentleman the Obama administration betrayed.

    You simply can not plan and execute a mission like the raid on the Abbottabad compound without a lot of people knowing about it. You also can’t call it off multiple times without a lot of people knowing about it. You also can’t put out BS stories about why you called it off, or BS stories about how it was planned and executed, without a lot of people knowing about it.

    The only thing I can compare it to are Japanese vets of the Battle of Midway and their reaction to the propaganda they read after the battle. They were confined to their ships or secret hospital wards, or sent off to remote south seas locations to die, so word of the defeat wouldn’t get out. When they did finally hear the radio broadcasts or someone smuggled aboard a paper with the news of the great Japanese victory at Midway they knew if their government had to tell such lies there was no way they could win the war.

    Let’s say the current iteration is that when they heard their government tell such lies they knew there was no way their President could be allowed to win reelection.

    Steve57 (d382ec)

  186. “Look what they did – are still doiung – with Cheney and Haliburton”

    Sasmmy – The only people who bought into the Cheney-Halliburton junk were brain dead fever swamp cess pool community based reality progtards who know nothing about business.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  187. I trust an insider at bain more than I trust hotair.

    What insider at bain? Even if Reid isn’t making his source up, he isn’t even claiming that the source is an insider at Bain; on the contrary, the source is supposed to be an investor, i.e. an outsider. Leaving aside the whole question of how any insider at Bain would have a clue about Romney’s taxes, an outsider would certainly have no clue.

    So you have three layers of nonsense here. 1) An anonymous source who may not exist 2) claiming to be an Bain outsider 3) for information that even an insider wouldn’t know.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  188. Four levels of nonsense, because Finkelman filled the thread with a huge dump of blather.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  189. Meanwhile, more revelations of conduct by the Obama administration of the sort that got the Democrats apoplectic when they accused the Bush administration of the same thing vis a vis the Cheney energy task force.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  190. Dustin, financial disclosure laws for Presidential candidates are unconstitutional.

    Are they? Under what provision? Article 1 section 4 would seem to explicitly give Congress the power to make such laws for congressional candidates, but I see nothing preventing them from doing so for presidential candidates either.

    I suspect you are referring to the eligibility clause of Article 2 section 1, but I don’t see how that has any bearing on what impositions Congress may make upon candidates. Of course Congress cannot prevent a duly elected candidate from taking office just because he has not complied with its requirements, any more than it can do so if he has broken any other law; all it can do is impeach and remove him.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  191. Reid introduced this showboating, blatantly unconstitutional bill (since the Constitution sets the requirements for a Presidential candidate, and Reid can’t tack any of his idiotic additions on)

    The constitution doesn’t even mention the concept of a presidential candidate, let alone set requirements for it. And even if it did, that wouldn’t prevent Congress from making for such candidates whatever laws it saw fit, so long as these laws are otherwise within the enumerated powers.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  192. “I suspect you are referring to the eligibility clause of Article 2 section 1, but I don’t see how that has any bearing on what impositions Congress may make upon candidates.”

    Milhouse – If Congress created additional laws without amending the Constitution saying that you are not eligible to be president unless you make A, B, C, or D disclosures, how would that be constitutional?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  193. And even if it did, that wouldn’t prevent Congress from making for such candidates whatever laws it saw fit

    A person is eligible for the presidency if they meet the constitutional requirements. Congress cannot change the requirements without amending the constitution.

    Dustin (73fead)

  194. Milhouse, because Congress can impeach for whatever it wants, you are admitting that Congress can’t create new eligibility hurdles for a Presidential candidate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  195. Milhouse – If Congress created additional laws without amending the Constitution saying that you are not eligible to be president unless you make A, B, C, or D disclosures, how would that be constitutional?

    It wouldn’t; but they haven’t done that, have they?

    A person is eligible for the presidency if they meet the constitutional requirements. Congress cannot change the requirements without amending the constitution.

    Agreed. How does that prevent them from making whatever laws they see fit for presidential candidates?

    Congress can’t create new eligibility hurdles for a Presidential candidate.

    Of course it can’t. Who has suggested that it can or should?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  196. better lawyer up
    sammy cuz I got bad case
    of carpal tunnel

    Colonel Haiku (bfc615)

  197. Congress can’t create new eligibility hurdles for a Presidential candidate.

    Of course it can’t. Who has suggested that it can or should?

    Oops. That should have read: The constitution says nothing at all about presidential candidates. I don’t see why Congress can’t create eligibility hurdles for such people, but in any case I’ve never heard of an attempt to do so. A legal imposition on such candidates bears no similarity to an eligibility hurdle, even if such were unconstitutional, which I don’t believe they are.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  198. I think it has been decided that the same Constitutional provisions relating to someone who takes the oath of office, also pertain to those that run for that office, or are in line to succeed to it.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  199. Congress has already imposed innumerable requirements on presidential candidates; they must file with the FEC, disclose their donors, their spending, endorse their ads, etc. They must not divert money from their campaign for certain purposes. I don’t even know what else. I know of no reason to believe these requirements are unconstitutional. They certainly don’t affect anybody’s eligibility for the presidency. Suppose someone blatantly violates all of them, and yet the Electoral College elects them; can anything prevent them from taking office? No. But they may be prosecuted for their lawbreaking, and may be impeached as well.

    So why can’t Congress add to these requirements one more, that they disclose their tax returns, or their medical reports, or their facebook passwords, or whatever?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  200. I think it has been decided that the same Constitutional provisions relating to someone who takes the oath of office, also pertain to those that run for that office

    I don’t see how. The constitution doesn’t even know of such a thing as “running for” the office.

    In any case, the eligibility clause doesn’t prevent Congress from making laws that govern the president or the president elect.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  201. The constitution says nothing at all about presidential candidates. I don’t see why Congress can’t create eligibility hurdles for such people, but in any case I’ve never heard of an attempt to do so.

    The constitution doesn’t work that way. You seem to be admitting that the constitution doesn’t grant any powers to the congress regarding candidate regulation. And that’s exactly what this is. Congress is regulating candidates and what they must tell opensecrets.org about their spouses and daughters, etc.

    Congress has already imposed innumerable requirements on presidential candidates; they must file with the FEC, disclose their donors, their spending, endorse their ads, etc.

    You have to show this is constitutional for this to be relevant. Obviously it is unconstitutional to abridge freedom of speech and association.

    It is unconstitutional for the government to regulate free speech in a way where if you express an opinion about gay marriage, a Federal Speech Commission can demand you disclose your diary’s contents. This isn’t any different from imposing a requirement on those running for office to disclose personal information.

    the eligibility clause doesn’t prevent Congress from making laws that govern the president or the president elect.

    Congress can make rules for the government, but making rules for people who aren’t in government if they exercise their eligibility for office? That’s just a hurdle to obtain the office, shuffled around bureacratically, and thus it is unconstitutional.

    Dustin (73fead)

  202. “Of course it can’t. Who has suggested that it can or should?”

    Milhouse – Have you made up your mind yet or are you still talking to yourself?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  203. Milhouse, I can’t figure out what you are trying to say in your 4:17pm. However, because the Constitution states what the eligibility requirements are, and because it does not extend to Congress the power to create new eligibility requirements, that’s why a statute that attempted to require that presidential candidates do something would be unconstitutional.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  204. Amazing how often these threads descend into the puerile and vulgar. Simply amazing…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  205. “Amazing how often these threads descend into the puerile and vulgar. Simply amazing…”

    WarEagle82 – Yet here you are again. Good to know you are above puerile commentary such as calling people stupid, dumb or lunatics.

    Oh wait, you’re not.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  206. See, it’s not an issue if Romney chooses not to reveal his tax records. He’s not breaking any laws, right? Right. Moving on.

    The Emperor (2fabb9)

  207. But since you are puerile and vulgar, what’s your point…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  208. “Vulgar”? Am sure you are referring to some other commenter here..

    The Emperor (62c93e)

  209. “But since you are puerile and vulgar, what’s your point…”

    WarEagle82 – My point is that your faux superiority act is a bunch of BS, but you can get vulgar if you want, although some of your comments may get filtered if you use the wrong words.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  210. WarEagle82 – My point is that your faux superiority…
    Comment by daleyrocks — 8/1/2012 @ 5:43 pm

    Well, especially in your case, it is obviously not “faux superiority”…

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  211. 207- I would almost rather didn’t release the data. We get to speculate what he’s hiding if he doesn’t. Who knows what he’s actually hiding but I’m sure Democratic strategists will float some ideas.

    tye (e3d4e8)

  212. “Well, especially in your case, it is obviously not “faux superiority”…”

    WarEagle82 – Thank you for proving my point.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  213. “Well, especially in your case, it is obviously not “faux superiority”…”
    WarEagle82 – Thank you for proving my point.
    Comment by daleyrocks — 8/1/2012 @ 7:50 pm

    But of course by saying I proved your point, you actually prove my point.

    The problem with especially stupid people, like you, is you just aren’t smart enough to realize how stupid you are.

    Talk about impaled on the horns of a dilemma.

    But, of course, you don’t understand what that means. Irony can be so ironic

    WarEagle82 (0bcfe5)

  214. Daley and jd are like tweedledee and tweedledumber.
    They are big on insults but short on talent.

    tye (e3d4e8)

  215. because the Constitution states what the eligibility requirements are, and because it does not extend to Congress the power to create new eligibility requirements, that’s why a statute that attempted to require that presidential candidates do something would be unconstitutional.

    Logic fail. Your premise is entirely correct, but your conclusion doesn’t follow. Think about it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  216. OK, since I seem to have no takers, let me explain. In order to avoid enumerated powers questions, let’s discuss congressional elections, since Congress clearly has the power to regulate them (Art 1 Sec 4).

    The constitution says that to be a senator you have to be at least 30 years old, a US citizen for 9 years, and a resident of the state you want to represent. Suppose Congress were to add a requirement that you not be a felon; that would be clearly unconstitutional, and if a felon were to be elected he would have to be seated. If he were still in prison he would have to be let out for senate sittings. He could be expelled by a vote of 2/3 of the senate, but that’s all.

    But suppose Congress were to legislate that candidates for the senate must disclose their donors, or show up for debates, or must submit to a medical examination. Do you deny that this is within Congress’s power? How can the eligibility clause possibly be read to prevent such a law? The law doesn’t purport to make any eligible candidate ineligible, so how can it be unconstitutional?

    Of course if a candidate violates this law and is elected anyway, he must be seated. Nobody disputes that. I have not seen any suggestion that the proposal we’re really discussing — that presidential candidates release many years of tax returns — would prevent a winning candidate who had refused to comply from taking office. That would clearly be unconstitutional. But I see no constitutional objection, at least from the eligibility clause, to making it a legal requirement. If someone refuses, he may be prosecuted for his refusal, but if he wins anyway he would take office and all Congress could do about it is impeach him.

    Now suppose Congress said that felons may not appear on the ballot for a senatorial election; would that be unconstitutional? I don’t think so; the constitution doesn’t require ballots in the first place, or that people’s names appear on them. The Australian ballot (a paper on which all candidates’ names appear) was unheard of in the framers’ day; as its name implies, it was invented in Australia in the late 19th century. So I don’t see why Congress can’t regulate it to impose requirements for appearing on it. If someone who doesn’t appear on it is elected anyway, he would have to be seated.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  217. “But of course by saying I proved your point, you actually prove my point.

    The problem with especially stupid people, like you, is you just aren’t smart enough to realize how stupid you are.”

    WarEagle82 – Keep going with your puerile logic, spud, after all, it’s the same argument you used two nights ago. Parroting what Rush Limbaugh tells you to think and then telling others to think the same way seems to be your function in life, but it is not a sign of superiority. Sorry.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  218. 218- oh please tell me you’re accusing someone else of letting rush limbaugh think for him/her. Hilarious.

    tye (b89df5)

  219. “oh please tell me you’re accusing someone else of letting rush limbaugh think for him/her. Hilarious.”

    tye – Why is it hilarious? I’ve already shown you get your talking points of the day from the Obama campaign. People who don’t have the mental horse power to think for themselves should not act superior – such as you and wareagle82.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  220. After careful consideration I believe that one of Obama’s stump speeches may be slightly misinformed in that he claims Romney will increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for folks like himself. The issue with that is pre-2010 it would be impossible for Romney to pay any less taxes. Or maybe Romney plans to have billionaires pay no taxes then get a refund check from the government? Could somebody clear up the mystery of exactly how mittens plans to screw the middle class? I know it’s his plan, but I’d like some detail.

    tye (b89df5)

  221. Comment by tye — 8/2/2012 @ 9:00 am

    Could somebody clear up the mystery of exactly how mittens plans to screw the middle class? I know it’s his plan, but I’d like some detail.

    The argument goes that Romney said he wants to “pay for” tax cuts by eliminating tax breaks. The money raised by eliminating tax breaks – almost whatever tax break or “loophole” you can imagine – can only substancialy come from people making less than the top tenth of 1% (people making under $3 million a year) because that’s where the money is.

    (Obama decided to make people making over $3 million a year, Mitt Romney’s peer group)

    This is all basically the thrust of a campaign speech by President Obama, where he cited the Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. The Tax Policy Center was cited by Romney as an authority during his primary campaign.

    The Romney campaign said this study isn’t quite non-partisan, as one of the three authors had been on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers under Obama. The Obama campaign retorted that another author had been on the economic staff of President George Bush the Elder.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  222. Milhouse writes: “But suppose Congress were to legislate that candidates for the senate must disclose their donors, or show up for debates, or must submit to a medical examination. Do you deny that this is within Congress’s power? How can the eligibility clause possibly be read to prevent such a law? The law doesn’t purport to make any eligible candidate ineligible, so how can it be unconstitutional?

    Of course if a candidate violates this law and is elected anyway, he must be seated. Nobody disputes that. “

    If there is no penalty for not disclosing, then your hypothetical is meaningless and you’ve not established your point at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  223. Sen Hairy Reed doubled down on the floor of the Senate.

    JD (cfef43)

  224. * substantially.

    President Obama was, of course nowhere bear as clear or explicit in his speech yesterday, so of course, you’re confused.

    The argument, stripped down, is that you can’t mathematically “pay for” a cut (or non-increase) in the marginal tax rate of people making the highest incomes by “closing loopholes” without raising the amount of tax collected from people making less than them, because most of the benefit of most tax breaks goes to people making less than them.

    Remember, people at the highest level of incomes have to pay the Alternative Minimum tax, and so don’t benefit so much from most tax breaks.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  225. Of course if a candidate violates this law and is elected anyway, he must be seated. Nobody disputes that.

    If there is no penalty for not disclosing, then your hypothetical is meaningless and you’ve not established your point at all.

    Who said anything about no penalty?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  226. Comment by JD — 8/2/2012 @ 9:35 am

    Sen Hairy Reed doubled down on the floor of the Senate.

    I don’t think this is the first time Harry Reid (or Nancy Pelosi) has made up a source. Didn’t this happen also with the supposed Tea Party racists?

    I suppose the doubling down – do you have the exact words? – means that Harry reid has someone who in a pinch, has volunteered to be the “source” but if that person is asked he will say he was only speculating.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  227. No, Sammy, he didn’t identify a source. He made the same claims as before, though using an “it’s out there” formulation. Basically, he cited his own unsubstantiated claims, and demands to be proven wrong.

    JD (cfef43)

  228. Comment by Steve57 — 8/1/2012 @ 12:10 pm

    The Obama administration thinks it’s a jim dandy idea to shoot their mouths off and put a Pakistani doctor who aided us in prison for thirty years.

    I don’t think that story was leaked until after they had informed the Pakistani government.

    That was the big mistake – telling the Pakistani government the details of how they knew it was bin Laden (after the raid).

    The Pakistani government had probably also indicated they were not going to punish anyone.

    So the only danger, in her mind, would have been from terrorists, and they did not leak the name of the doctor.

    The Pakistani government almost certainly only knew the name, because the U.S. government had told them. (or had given them enough details to figure it out)

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  229. “Who said anything about no penalty?”

    Milhouse – Do you have a point or not?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  230. Comment by Milhouse — 8/1/2012 @ 4:25 pm

    So why can’t Congress add to these requirements one more, that they disclose their tax returns, or their medical reports, or their facebook passwords, or whatever?

    Since all the rules for electing a president, except maybe rules as to who cannot be made ineligible to vote, are set by the states, the rules governing presidential candidates probably have to do with establishing or running a campaign committee and/or receiving federal funds.

    The Supreme Court has upheld them as tending to prevent corruption, but there is a limit to what they might uphold, let alone what Congress would pass.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  231. Comment by JD — 8/2/2012 @ 9:51 am

    No, Sammy, he didn’t identify a source. He made the same claims as before, though using an “it’s out there” formulation.

    Well, now it’s out there.

    The Bain investor is gone, now it’s just “out there?”

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  232. Milhouse writes: “Who said anything about no penalty?”

    Your game got old awhile ago. Your incoherence is obviously intentional trolling.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  233. Is Harry Reid still saying “ten” years, or is there no number now?

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  234. This story was probably planted in several different ways.

    It is kind of significant that the Obama campaign needed somebody of the stature of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to give it a real push.

    And a real disgrace that he went along.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  235. Does anyone know where Romney’s 2010 tax return might be posted online? (since some people seem to think it matters)

    I don’t think anybody even looks at it.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  236. “Who said anything about no penalty?”

    Milhouse – Do you have a point or not?

    Of course I do. My point is obvious. I see no constitutional reason why Congress can’t make such a law, with whatever penalty it likes, just like any other law. The eligibility clause is no barrier to that, unless the proposed penalty is to prevent an elected candidate from taking office, and I’ve never heard of any proposal that would carry such a penalty, for the obvious reason that it’s impossible.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  237. Milhouse writes: “Who said anything about no penalty?”

    Your game got old awhile ago. Your incoherence is obviously intentional trolling.

    You’re the one who’s incoherent. You claim that because Congress can’t change the eligibility criteria for the presidency or for Congress (which is true) it therefore can’t make laws for candidates, or impose penalties for breaking those laws! This is obviously untrue with regard to congressional candidates, and probably untrue (or at least not obviously true, and does not logically follow) with regard to presidential ones.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  238. This reminds me, SPQR, that you were similarly incoherent about the sixteenth amendment. I wrote that Congress clearly has the power to tax wages and salaries, and had it even before the sixteenth amendment, and that nobody has ever even claimed that such taxes were direct. You strenuously disagreed, and claimed the Supreme Court had said otherwise, and yet when the truth of my statement was proven you refused to back down or apologise.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  239. Milhouse, the case is discussed here at Wikipedia. The decision seems to be here.

    You’re right that that only income from rent was considered to be a direct tax. But the income tax as a whole was held to violate the clause requiring taxes to be uniform throughout the country:

    But the law is not invalid merely in its disregard of the rule of apportionment of the direct tax levied. There is another and an equally cogent objection to it. In taxing incomes other than rents and profits of real estate, it disregards the rule of uniformity which is prescribed in such cases by the Constitution. The eighth section of the first article of the Constitution declares that “the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

    aphrael (5d993c)

  240. The income tax as a whole was held to violate the clause requiring taxes to be uniform throughout the country:

    How so? In what way was it not uniform? Because income is not equally distributed around the country? Nor is the consumption of anything on which an excise might be levied. Indirect taxes must be laid at a uniform rate, but the revenue raised needn’t be uniform. An excise on air conditioners would obviously raise more in some states than in others.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  241. Milhouse, it’s a good question. I haven’t been able to find the time yet to read that portion of the opinion – and nineteenth century court opinions are always a bit of a struggle to get through, anyhow. :)

    aphrael (5d993c)

  242. “Of course I do. My point is obvious. I see no constitutional reason why Congress can’t make such a law, with whatever penalty it likes, just like any other law. The eligibility clause is no barrier to that, unless the proposed penalty is to prevent an elected candidate from taking office, and I’ve never heard of any proposal that would carry such a penalty, for the obvious reason that it’s impossible.”

    Milhouse – Good. You have finally stated a position which is in basic agreement with my comment #194 from yesterday. What took you so long?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  243. Milhouse, like here, you were playing a game, wherein you kept moving goalposts, shifting terms and tried to claim people were arguing what you wanted them to. It was boring then too.

    SPQR (695f2a)

  244. You have finally stated a position which is in basic agreement with my comment #194 from yesterday. What took you so long?

    What on earth are you talking about? I agreed with #194 in #197! It’s obvious that Congress can’t add to the eligibility requirements. But nobody is proposing that it do so. We are discussing whether Congress can make a law requiring candidates to do something, or forbidding them from doing something, on the pain of some penalty. Specifically that they publish some number of years’ worth of tax returns. You have been claiming that this would be unconstitutional, and I have been saying since the very beginning of this discussion that you cannot base that view on the eligibility clause. Such a law does not affect anybody’s eligibility, so it can’t possibly fall afoul of that clause. It’s very simple, and I don’t understand how you can fail to understand it.

    Milhouse, like here, you were playing a game, wherein you kept moving goalposts, shifting terms and tried to claim people were arguing what you wanted them to. It was boring then to

    Bulldust. I never shifted the goalpost; my position was 100% consistent from beginning to end, then as it is now. You are the one arguing an utterly illogical and incoherent position, that because Congress can’t change the eligibility clause, it therefore can’t impose any requirements on candidates.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  245. Romney called out Hairy Reed. I think he stopped short of calling him a liar.

    JD (cfef43)

  246. yet when the truth of my statement was proven you refused to back down or apologise apologize.

    We spell it differently across the pond…

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  247. he favours posts coloured with an effete odour…

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  248. “We are discussing whether Congress can make a law requiring candidates to do something, or forbidding them from doing something, on the pain of some penalty.”

    Milhouse – Who said anything about a penalty?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  249. Milhouse – Who said anything about a penalty?

    So there’s no penalty? That’s even better. You’re only digging your hole deeper. The existence or otherwise of a penalty is irrelevant to the law’s constitutionality, but if there’s none then how can you even question it? Still, there must be some penalty, because almost every law has one. And I see no constitutional bar to imposing one.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  250. Milhouse, I get bored easily. You’ve bored me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  251. Is that because you can’t come up with a logical argument? Come on, I know you’re capable of logic.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  252. “So there’s no penalty?”

    Milhouse – See your #227. When you finally decided to stop going in circles talking to yourself was #244.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  253. Daleyrocks, in #218 I suggested a hypothetical law that Congress might make, which you and SPQR would seem to think was unconstitutional, but which is clearly not. In #224, SPQR illogically and out of nowhere introduced the assumption that this law would not carry any penalty, saying that if so the hypothetical is meaningless, presumably because the law would never be challenged, it would just be openly flouted. In #227 I challenged that assumption, which was stupid and baseless. Of course the law would carry a penalty, as almost all laws do. But if for some strange reason it didn’t, then it would be on even stronger constitutional ground.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  254. See, it’s not an issue if Romney chooses not to reveal his tax records. He’s not breaking any laws, right? Right. Moving on.

    Comment by The Emperor —

    Exactly. I think you intended this to be something so ridiculous as to be absurd, but it’s not ridiculous at all. Yes, Romney didn’t break any laws and we all know he’s super rich and minimized his taxes in a lawful manner. Moving on to real issues. Like Obamacare, the deficit, Obama’s many broken promises, and fast and furious and other corruption.

    Dustin (73fead)

  255. 247- because he’s not a liar

    tye (b89df5)

  256. Emperor… like all GOOD Americans, Romney pays the taxes he owes per our tax code and laws and takes the deductions he’s allowed under same.

    Unlike Timmy “Keebler” Geithner and dozens of other 0bama administration folks, he pays his taxes.

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  257. Reid is lower than a garden-variety liar, tyena. He gives new meaning to the word “excremental”…

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  258. 258- and you’ve got a reasonable (5+ years) worth of data to PROVE that right? Oh wait…

    tye (b89df5)

  259. How can you make a definitive statement about someone you don’t know without any proof? You can’t… or at least you shouldn’t.

    tye (b89df5)

  260. Romney is subject to audits just like the rest of us, tyena… probably more so.

    In teh spirit of Hairy Reid, when did you stop beating your meat, tyena?

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  261. I’ve read over 100 items about Senator Hairy Reid’s buggery of little boys, tyena. I’m not willing to take his denials, should he proffer them. He needs to come clean.

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  262. Best proof that “Tye” s a troll, ever: comment 261. How he wrote that without bursting into flames is a mystery.

    Just laugh at him. He is lazy and not serious.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  263. For all this purported hatred of gays that conservatives seem to have they sure do talk a lot about their little boy or toy on man fantasies. It’s quite disturbing. Seriously.

    tye (b89df5)

  264. Oh, I see. Tye thinks Romney can’t be presumed innocent even after we’ve seen a couple of years of his data and he’s been through quite a hell of a primary.

    And he’s running against President Rezko corruption who described himself as on the road towards being a junky. Has Obama passed a drug test recently? Isn’t it much more reasonable to demand one than it is to ask for Romney’s tax records?

    Some say they may have heard that Obama did not stop abusing the illegal narcotics he explained he has used in his strangely premature memoirs. Has Obama stopped using drugs? How can we know without a simple drug test? Isn’t answering this question worth a few minutes of Obama’s time?

    Dustin (73fead)

  265. I heard 0bama say cocaine wasn’t addictive, that he’d snorted coke for 15 years and he ain’t hooked.

    He did go on to say that his one regret was that if he’d stopped spending all his green on teh white, he could’ve bought a piece of property… Hell… he “could’ve bought Peru!”

    Instead, he consorted with known criminal Tony Rezko.

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  266. 247- because he’s not a liar

    Really?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  267. 266- we shouldn’t have to presume his innocence and that is the exact point

    tye (b89df5)

  268. Tye,

    The reason Romney doesn’t release his tax returns is because he made an awful lot of money and he knows that the specifics would be particularly upsetting to the low-class moochers with several children out of wedlock such as yourself, who harbor intense resentments toward successful people.

    By the way, if access to roads and bridges and knowing how to use the internet are the “reasons” for successful people becoming successful, then what the hell is stopping all you lazy Jerry Springer types from becoming successful ? There’s a road…go drive on it…and you’re already on a computer—so other than a lack of intelligence, business acumen, vision, ambition, perseverance, self-discipline, and a work ethic, what exactly is stopping you from becoming the next Bill Gates ?

    Go make millions !

    And if the roads and internet don’t make you a millionaire, then you should go find a bridge, and jump off it. I promise that if you can jump off the bridge successfully, that it would be an act that would be perceived by the general public as, uh, as good as gold !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  269. 247- because he’s not a liar

    Prove it. Prove he told the truth. Prove your claim that he paid no taxes. Prove Reed’s claim that he didn’t pay for 10 years. I will save you the effort. You cannot, because you are being dishonest, and making shlt up.

    JD (cfef43)

  270. Your claim. Your burden of proof. Here is a hint … He got audited at least once in said time period.

    JD (cfef43)

  271. 266- we shouldn’t have to presume his innocence and that is the exact point

    So we shouldn’t have to presume that 0bama didn’t get a Fulbright Scholarship to Occidental college, that his scores at Columbia were high enough for a white student to get into Harvard, that his tuition was paid for neither by the Ayers family nor by the Saudis, that there’s nothing explosive in his thesis, that the Rashid Khalidi tape doesn’t show him openly supporting terrorism, that he didn’t have Ayers ghostwrite his book, that Ayers didn’t in fact pick him out at Columbia and mastermind his entire political career, that he didn’t take a bribe from Rezko, that neither Vera Baker nor Larry Sinclair are more than friends with him, that’s his medical report in 2008 didn’t show him to be in terrible health, etc.

    And until a year or so ago, we shouldn’t have had to presume that he was born in the USA.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  272. the low-class moochers with several children out of wedlock such as yourself,

    I don’t think he’s old enough.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  273. I heard on the radio today that a Harvard admin called the host. The Harvard guy said he had all of the President’s records.

    Turns out, the President hardly attended classes and failed the ones he did. The profs are covering for him.

    It’s time for the President to come clean about his college record. He seems to have a Harvard degree, but people there say he cheated his way through.

    We shouldn’t have to presume his innocence and that is the exact point

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  274. Of course you throw accusations at Obama without proof…. but that’s different I guess. Hypocrisy.

    tye (b89df5)

  275. Of course you throw accusations at Obama without proof…. but that’s different I guess. Hypocrisy.

    Um, I’ve got exactly as much proof as you and Reid have about Romney.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  276. And Ag80 heard it from some guy on the radio who said he was a Harvard admin.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  277. 275- liar. Failures aren’t law review board material at Harvard. If the bogus misdirection is all you’ve got… well let’s just say I look forward to the next few months ;-)

    tye (b89df5)

  278. Just think of how embarrassing it would be for Reid if Romney would just release the data…. all he has to do is release the data. Unless of course the data proves Reid correct. That would be a good reason for Romney to hide it.

    tye (b89df5)

  279. I’m not a liar. I heard it on the radio today. I think some other people did, too. I’m just reporting what I heard. I have no knowledge of the veracity.

    It’s up to you to prove it’s false.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  280. I’m afraid you are unclear on the meaning of hypocrisy. Nonetheless, it was on the radio today. What I reported is true. Calling me a liar does not incriminate what I heard.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  281. “Daleyrocks, in #218 I suggested a hypothetical law that Congress might make, which you and SPQR would seem to think was unconstitutional…”

    Milhouse – I don’t see where I made any comment on #218. Apart from that, you never explained you indecipherable #199 and the multitude of comments before #218 where you were just gassing, moving goal posts and creating scenarios out of thin air. It is what you do.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  282. Just think of how embarrassing it would be for Reid if Romney would just release the data…. all he has to do is release the data. Unless of course the data proves Reid correct. That would be a good reason for Romney to hide it.

    Just think of how embarrassing it would be for everyone accusing 0bama of stuff if he were to release all his records. All he has to do is release them. Unless of course the records show him to be a fraud and a menace. That would be a good reason for him to hide them.

    Oh, but unlike Reid, nobody has actually accused 0bama of anything; we’re just speculating about reasons why he would be hiding all this stuff. Like what did he say at that Khalidi dinner?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  283. “Nonetheless, it was on the radio today.”

    Ag80 – I heard the claims on the radio as well. They are out there. It is incumbent on Obama to disprove them.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  284. Ag80 – And the allegations about Reid as well.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  285. #199 is hardly “indecipherable”; it means exactly what it says: the constitution says nothing about “presidential candidates”, and doesn’t even know that such creatures exist. So I don’t see why Congress can’t set whatever eligibility criteria it likes for who can be one. But in fact Congress hasn’t done so, and nobody is proposing that it do so, so the point is moot.

    Daleyrocks, you said that because Congress can’t change the eligibility requirements, it also can’t make any laws that apply to candidates. That’s what I’m challenging.

    And what “multitude of comments before #218 where you were just gassing, moving goal posts and creating scenarios out of thin air”? I have been 100% consistent through this entire thread: Congress cannot change the eligibility requirements for president or congress, but it can make laws that candidates have to obey.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  286. Here’s what the host actually said:

    (Obama) “got the lowest grades that any Harvard graduate ever got and that a bunch of professors gave him Bs and Cs when he didn’t even show up to class. It’s up to Obama to prove it. The allegation’s out there.”

    So, he didn’t fail, but he wasn’t Law Review material, obviously. I got the quote off Media Matters, so it must be true.

    We shouldn’t have to presume his innocence and that is the exact point.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  287. Again all mittens has to do is release the data and he could have a field day with Reid. It is very suspicious that he still will not do so. His father would have…. but then again his father had integrity.

    tye (b89df5)

  288. #199 is hardly “indecipherable”; it means exactly what it says: the constitution says nothing about “presidential candidates”, and doesn’t even know that such creatures exist. So I don’t see why Congress can’t set whatever eligibility criteria it likes for who can be one. But in fact Congress hasn’t done so, and nobody is proposing that it do so, so the point is moot.

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Seems like the US Constitution does know that candidates exist.

    And here is the limited power that outlines what powers congress has to set criteria for anything:

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  289. Again all the President has to do is release the data and he could have a field day with the rest of the nation. It is very suspicious that he still will not do so. His father would have, well, probably not, but then again his father had several wives, sometimes at the same time.

    Unlike Romney.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  290. Seems like the US Constitution does know that candidates exist.

    Where? The bit you quoted said nothing about candidates. Nor does the rest of the constitution. The framers had no idea such a creature would ever exist.

    And here is the limited power that outlines what powers congress has to set criteria for anything:

    How do you derive that?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  291. Of course you throw accusations at Obama without proof….

    But your fantasy BS claims of Romney are different in what way?

    JD (cfef43)

  292. “Release the data”? Release the hounds…

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  293. Tyena is the micro-version of the crap the 0bama campaign must sling. Mitt Romney is as straight an arrow as you’ll find in this life – let alone politics – and the better he looks, the worse it makes all of these flailing lefty schmucks look.

    They must, at all costs, try to distract the American people from the disaster the 0bama administration has been for the U.S. It is as simple as that.

    Colonel Haiku (9e1ca4)

  294. tye, Romney should not release data just because Reid lied (and yeah, it’s obviously a lie) about something it supposedly contains. If he complied with the dishonest demand, democrats would make up new demands and cite this compliance as proof that future compliance proved something wrong.

    This is why we have a presumption of innocence in polite society as well as in criminal law.

    Do you have any evidence Reid’s claims are true? The source Reid cited wouldn’t know what Reid claimed, so it’s obviously not an honest accusation.

    On the other hand, we do know that Obama confesses using hard drugs in his memoirs.

    All Obama has to do is take a drug test so that we know he’s no longer on drugs. I would also like Obama to release the data on his drug dealers. I want to know what other drug addictions Obama’s drug abuse helped support, since keeping a drug dealer in business could be tantamount to funding murder. That’s what it means to sell heroin to children. I want to know what kind of company Obama kept.

    All he has to do is release the data. Romney should ask Obama when he stopped using the hard drugs, who sold him those hard drugs, and if he will agree to a drug test.

    Dustin (73fead)

  295. Maybe Brett Kimberlin is Obama’s drug supplier? Disprove that tye.

    PCD (d3f1b7)

  296. The bit you quoted said nothing about candidates. Nor does the rest of the constitution. The framers had no idea such a creature would ever exist.

    Baloney. There were already elections in the colonies that became the United States, and there were CANDIDATES for those elections.

    To say that the framers had no idea that candidates would exist is just silly.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  297. Where? The bit you quoted said nothing about candidates. Nor does the rest of the constitution. The framers had no idea such a creature would ever exist.

    You know that little part that says:

    “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected. ”

    Now who in hell would be elected except something that might be called what? Big Hint: Might that person be referred to as a CANDIDATE? Here’s a big clue for you! You generally have to be a candidate for an office to get elected! DUH!!!!!!!!!!! And the framers had no idea that there would be candidates for the office of President? Guess old George Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al just got their names pulled outa somebody’s ass and that they were never candidates for President and were never elected either.

    And here is the limited power that outlines what powers congress has to set criteria for anything:

    How do you derive that?

    Oh I guess I just must have pulled it outa my ass.–NOT

    I guess I got it from the fact that the US Constitution is a list of enumerated powers, and that it states Congress’ power quite clearly:

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    Note the words “MAY determine”, that is what gives them the legal power to do and only do what follows. Nowhere else does it hint at any other power that congress has at setting any type of qualifications. And then, AND THEN, it goes into what the qualifications are in order to be eligible to be elected as President. It doesn’t leave this to Congress, it states the qualifications itself.

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    See it is talking about people that are eligible to be elected President, but have not actually been elected yet. Damn, I coulda swore that these mythical folks were actually referred to as CANDIDATES. And that means that you have to meet those criteria in order to run as a candidate for President.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  298. There were already elections in the colonies that became the United States, and there were CANDIDATES for those elections.

    There were not supposed to be elections for president. The public were supposed to choose electors, whose judgment they trusted, and those electors were supposed to come up with their own ideas for who should be president. There were not supposed to be any candidates, and indeed for decades it was considered unseemly for anyone to campaign or even to put themselves forward for the presidency. Washington was never a candidate; the electors just spontaneously voted for him, and it never occurred to them to vote for anyone else. Of course it was naïve to think this system could work, and it didn’t, but the framers seem to have been just that naïve.

    Nowhere else does it hint at any other power that congress has at setting any type of qualifications.

    For the umpteenth time, nobody is talking about qualifications to be elected president. Though now that there is such a thing as candidates for the presidency, I don’t see why Congress can’t, in principle, set qualifications for those. This wouldn’t prevent someone who didn’t qualify from taking office if he were to be elected anyway.

    But that’s a remote hypothetical, because nobody’s proposing any such thing. What we’re talking about is a proposal to require candidates to make certain disclosures. That doesn’t restrict who can be a candidate; it just requires them, having been duly registered as candidates, to make the disclosures required. What’s your constitutional objection to that?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  299. My objection is the one that is already stated. The Constitution has already set what Congress can do, and do only that and no more.

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  300. For the umpteenth time, nobody is talking about qualifications to be elected president. Though now that there is such a thing as candidates for the presidency, I don’t see why Congress can’t, in principle, set qualifications for those.

    And because that if Congress sets qualifications for people to be a candidate, then they are also setting up additional qualifications on who can be President. This is not in their purview, cause of a little ole thing know as Separation of Powers.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  301. And because that if Congress sets qualifications for people to be a candidate, then they are also setting up additional qualifications on who can be President.

    How so? The electors remain just as free as they were in 1789 to choose — or even chuse — whomever they want. State laws restricting their choice are probably unconstitutional. They could choose someone who isn’t a candidate, if they liked.

    But in any case, the proposal we’re discussing wouldn’t stop anyone from being a candidate; it would just require those who are candidates to do certain things.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  302. My objection is the one that is already stated. The Constitution has already set what Congress can do, and do only that and no more.

    That clause says what Congress can do about the Electoral College. It doesn’t say Congress can’t make laws for presidential candidates. It can certainly make laws for congressional candidates, even though it can’t change their eligiblity criteria either.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  303. Harry Reid said it for the third time last night:

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/03/Reid-Romney-has-shut-up-must-put-up/UPI-43101343977200/?spt=hs&or=tn

    The Obama campaign has not said anything in support of Reid’s specific allegation.

    Reid responded to Romney’s radio comments Thursday night, repeating he “was told by an extremely credible source that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years.

    “People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes,” Reid’s statement said. “We already know that Romney has exploited many of these loopholes, stashing his money in secret, overseas accounts in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.”

    Reid revived a criticism that Romney did not follow through on a promise he made to ABC News last week that he would be “happy to go back” and check his tax returns and to see if he ever paid an effective tax rate below the 13.9 percent rate he paid in 2010, the only year’s complete tax return he has released.

    A day later his campaign said Romney had no intention of putting out any further information. The campaign has declined to answer further questions on the matter.

    “When it comes to answering the legitimate questions the American people have about whether he avoided paying his fair share in taxes or why he opened a Swiss bank account, Romney has shut up,” Reid said.

    “But as a presidential candidate, it’s his obligation to put up, and release several years’ worth of tax returns just like nominees of both parties have done for decades.

    “It’s clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is,” Reid said.

    “Whatever Romney’s hiding probably speaks volumes about how he would approach issues that directly impact middle-class families, like tax reform and the economy. When you are running for president, you should be an open book,” he said.

    A second source close to Reid told CNN the original source for Reid’s claim was a Bain investor and a “credible person.”

    Another source who claims to know the Bain investor told The Huffington Post that “if we knew the name we would understand they would have the authority and the ability to know about Romney’s tax returns,” the Post reported.

    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/03/Reid-Romney-has-shut-up-must-put-up/UPI-43101343977200/#ixzz22TXzzJfa

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  304. Last night John Batchelor asked do we have an explanation that’s rational for what Harry Reid is doing, and one of his guests said the answer was an Area Code:

    312

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  305. The only way anything that Harry Reid saying could make sense is if Romney had given “Power of Attorney” to someone to prepare his tax returns, or manage a blind trust, and the person was now betraying Romney – something very very unlikely. And such a person would not be best described as a “Bain investor.”

    It’s kind of significant that the Obama re-election campaign is hiding behind Harry Reid.

    It’s more than one person. We’ve also got anonymous leaks to CNN and the Huffington Post.

    At least one time that’s probably somebody on his staff.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce5e39)

  306. 292- nobody is talking about the president’s grades in freshman composition besides you. If I had to guess I would say that the country is well aware of the lies vomited forth by the right wing hate machine daily (rush, savage, faux news) and are not giving this much thought. Your problem is that you think Dan Rather’s poor fact checking from almost ten years ago somehow justifies the right wing lies in the public eye. Nobody listens and believes anything jabba the rush says who isn’t already voting republican.

    tye (b89df5)

  307. tye, the truth hurts, doesn’t it? The fact is Reid is a corrupt liar just like you.

    PCD (d3f1b7)

  308. Reid only has the voices in his head as his sources. The man is sick and so are the people who defend him. Reid needs to be removed from the US Senate and installed in the nearest mental institution.

    PCD (d3f1b7)

  309. 310- every day that Romney doesn’t release that data Harry Reid looks more and more correct in his assertions

    tye (b89df5)

  310. Fantastic read (Reid)

    tye (b89df5)

  311. Again, “Tye” is pathetic little troll. Read his #261.

    He is a hypocrite alphabetist.

    Laugh at him. He only posts to irritate and cause trouble. Like most trolls, I doubt he believes in much.

    Really sad.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  312. I heard that “Tye” likes pictures of unclothed children. It’s up to him to prove its not true.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  313. Again with the child porn stuff. Seriously…. gross guys. Fact is, if somebody was accusing me of that and I had data that I could release to disprove those accusations… I would. Hypothetical example: if I were richer than sh-t and I was running for president on a “cut taxes for the uber rich” platform I would want to prove that I didn’t pay a negative tax rate. But that’s just a hypothetical.

    tye (b89df5)

  314. 316- is that similar to the republican effort to reinstate jim crow to suppress low SES voters?

    tye (b89df5)

  315. tye lies again.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  316. Except, “Tye” you don’t present evidence. Which makes you guilty by Reidian logic.

    SPQR, make the troll defend OFA’s unpatriotic attempt at vote suppression.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  317. Seriously, I would love to hear the defense. But since is a lazy troll, I don’t expect much.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  318. Indeed, Simon. Of course, the Democratic effort is not like any made-up faux “Jim Crow” as it is really happening. Currently. By Democrats.

    Well, the Democrat part is what makes it like Jim Crow of course.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  319. Well if it’s on powerline blog it must be true….

    tye (b89df5)

  320. 316- is that similar to the republican effort to reinstate jim crow to suppress low SES voters?

    Comment by tye — 8/3/2012 @ 5:36 am

    Lies

    JD (cfef43)

  321. Adorable that jd is not familiar with the faux voter fraud outrage conjured up by the right in order to suppress votes for Democratic candidates. Inform yourself biff.

    tye (b89df5)

  322. JD is more familiar with the real fraudulent voting convictions occurring in the US, by Democrats like the convictions last month in Florida.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  323. No, tye. You lied. There are no Jim Crow laws being pursued. You lied. Typical leftist race-baiting and fear mongering. It is all you have got. It is transparent, and pathetic.

    JD (cfef43)

  324. Oh, I want “tye” to *defend* Obama for America’s actions in Ohio. Don’t change the subject, troll. Don’t play the childish “someone else does it too.” You think your “side” is all ethical. Go for it.

    But you won’t. You are a lazy partisan troll, with not a single original thought in your head. And you know it.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  325. Hell, JD, I’ll be this poltroon doesn’t even know the history of Jim Crow. He just heard it on Maddow.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  326. Then there is the Democrats in New York charged with ballot fraud … the Democrats in Georgia charged with ballot fraud … last year’s Mississippi NAACP official convicted of ballot fraud …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  327. SPQR – that is different.

    JD (cfef43)

  328. JD, yes its different. Five years in prison for a Democrat fraudulently voting. Versus tye’s fantasy claims.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  329. It’s interesting that Reid was selected to perform this particularly unsavory role (or “hit”, as they say in Chicago). A coincidence that it’s a Mormon on Mormon crime? I wonder.

    elissa (2af611)

  330. Amusing that Obama’s campaign wants to restrict military voting, given how much of their work Obama steals credit for.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  331. A billionaire threatening to sue for libel gets traction, JD. I wish Reid was responsible for his words.

    On the other hand, Reid’s hands are not quite so clean: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/08/why-doesnt-harry-reid-answer-sourced-accusations-of-racism-and-corruption.html

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  332. 328- speaking of transparent it sure would be nice to see Romney offer the same transparency that Obama has in terms of his financial data. I suppose Republican consistency is just a pipe dream. Maybe in 2016 you can all get together and nominate someone with values and integrity.

    tye (b89df5)

  333. Wow you’re hitting hard with the blogs this morning. Not familiar with americanthinker… can I assume it’s a non-partisan truth seeking blog? Ha!

    tye (b89df5)

  334. Values and integrity are punchlines to jokes for people like tye

    JD (cfef43)

  335. Obama lied, tye’s veracity died.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  336. Did the DCCC have to apologize for their smears, tye?

    JD (cfef43)

  337. Oh, we could talk Rezko, except “tye” doesn’t understand that story. I still want him to defend Obama for America’s attempt to suppress the votes of American servicemen and servicewomen.

    Go ahead, troll. Of course, you would have to read some articles…and then think. So you are doubly screwed.

    Simon Jester (dab08c)

  338. 340 sort of like how racism and bigotry are hilarious to you biff?

    All those RACISM rants…. not funny.

    tye (b89df5)

  339. I don’t take my cues, or pointers, from you, tye. You are, however, a useful idiot, in that you demonstrate what we are discussing.

    JD (cfef43)

  340. And Auchi, the Baathist bagman, who bribed government officials, all through out Europe,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  341. Read the breitbart article. Servicemen and women, just like everyone else with jobs, should be able to get to the booth in the same time that everyone else does. The military teaches them to budget their time.

    tye (b89df5)

  342. tye says that because of allegations with no evidence, Mitt Romney has no values or integrity.

    Wow. That’s straight up fascism. Just have some jerk accuse a republican, and he’s guilty without evidence. If he somehow exonerates himself, just accuse him of something else.

    Has Obama taken a drug test? He admitted using illegal and hard narcotics and being on the road to ‘junky’. Shouldn’t we know?

    Dustin (73fead)

  343. We don’t give poor people, who have to work two or three jobs in order to foot the tax bill that Romney shirks, three extra days to vote.

    tye (b89df5)

  344. Read the breitbart article. Servicemen and women, just like everyone else with jobs, should be able to get to the booth in the same time that everyone else does. The military teaches them to budget their time.

    Comment by tye

    You’re a bastard seeking to strip our soldiers of the rights they provide all of us. The military is not just a ‘job’, and imposes many obligations, including on time and place.

    It costs you nothing to ensure these troops get to vote, but because they are unlikely to support Obama, you want to take it away.

    Dustin (73fead)

  345. tye, poor people do not generally work three jobs to pay a lot of income tax.

    Dustin (73fead)

  346. Great trolling, though. A real improvement in your game lately.

    Dustin (73fead)

  347. You’re a dipstick who wants to bring back the poll tax.

    tye (b89df5)

  348. Read the breitbart article.

    I did. It said the number one reason for serviceman not voting is insufficient time to vote.

    So, this suit would end in disenfranchising the military. And the military is disproportionately made up of minorities.

    Tye wants to disenfranchise minorities!

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  349. You’re a dipstick who wants to bring back the poll tax.

    You’re a liar. And you want to prevent minorities from voting.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  350. 354- who would be most likely to not vote because of voter id laws? Minorities/poor. African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. You want to suppress those votes. No different than jim crow.

    tye (b89df5)

  351. who would be most likely to not vote because of voter id laws? Minorities/poor

    Assumes facts not in evidence. You have no evidence that military personnel would not have ID. I have evidence that military personnel are not voting because they don’t have enough time to vote, and you want to ensure that they don’t have enough time.

    You’re losing this argument, putz. But spewing out your hatred for minorities.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  352. 357- including the story posted in 357

    tye (b89df5)

  353. 358- anecdotal evidence from a conservative website isn’t evidence.

    tye (b89df5)

  354. How am I spewing hatred for minorities by expressing my concern for their disenfranchisement? You are inexplicably stupid.

    tye (b89df5)

  355. Except it’s not anecdotal. Didn’t you follow the link on the Breitbart article? The evidence came from here

    But keep trying to prevent minorities in the military from voting, it shows the world what you’re really about.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  356. How am I spewing hatred for minorities by expressing my concern for their disenfranchisement?

    You want minorities in the military disenfranchised. That’s how.

    And I am much smarter than you, putz.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  357. tye uses the word “transparent” and Obama in the same sentence. That’s pretty hilarious when the Obama administration is using executive privilege to hide records relating to an ATF operation that resulted in hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least two dead American LEO’s.

    Pretty hilarious when Obama hide his birth certificate for four years.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  358. You shouldn’t vote unless you’ve served honorably in the military or paid taxes for the past four years.

    Poll tax? I guess.

    Dustin (73fead)

  359. tye really does a hilariously bad job, if his intention was to argue for Obama’s reelection. He shows the fundamental hypocrisy of Democrats so brazenly, anyone can see it.

    tye makes our arguments for us in his every comment, through his incompetence, his dishonesty and his hypocrisy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  360. Oh I see. Only minorities in the military deserve to have their votes protected. Interesting take chuck.

    tye (b89df5)

  361. 365- ouch! Romney can’t even vote in his own election.

    tye (b89df5)

  362. Only minorities in the military deserve to have their votes protected

    I never said that. You’re a liar. As a matter of fact, I want everyone who is legally eligible to vote to cast one vote. And I don’t want anyone who is not legally eligible to cast any votes.

    But YOU don’t want to protect military votes, and your position disproportionately impacts on minorities. Therefore, YOU don’t want to protect minority votes.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  363. tye uses the word “transparent” and Obama in the same sentence. That’s pretty hilarious when the Obama administration is using executive privilege to hide records relating to an ATF operation that resulted in hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least two dead American LEO’s.

    Pretty hilarious when Obama hide his birth certificate for four years.

    Comment by SPQR

    The only transparency in the 0bama administration is how they treat our national security secrets.

    Colonel Haiku (f76845)

  364. It’s kind of significant that the Obama re-election campaign is hiding behind Harry Reid.

    It’s more than one person. We’ve also got anonymous leaks to CNN and the Huffington Post.

    At least one time that’s probably somebody on his staff.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman

    First there was SWATting and now there’s TWATting.

    Colonel Haiku (f76845)

  365. tye’s getting it in every orifice today… same old… same old…

    Colonel Haiku (f76845)

  366. the same transparency that Obama has in terms of his financial data

    Really? So where is the contract with Rezko?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  367. Servicemen and women, just like everyone else with jobs, should be able to get to the booth in the same time that everyone else does. The military teaches them to budget their time.

    I can’t believe I just read that. Honestly. Of all the bizarre things I’ve read in my life, and I’ve read some pretty weird sh*t, this has got to rank among the strangest.

    There’s a law that servicemen who are being sued can delay the suit for years, because they haven’t got time to deal with it. (That’s the law Clinton tried to take advantage of, claiming that as Commander in Chief he was covered.) The same principle should be bleeding obvious here.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  368. You’re a dipstick who wants to bring back the poll tax.

    What’s wrong with poll taxes? The constitution mentions them twice as a valid tax. (It requires them to be apportioned among the states, and it prohibits conditioning the franchise on their payment.)

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  369. anecdotal evidence from a conservative website isn’t evidence.

    Why not? Does the site have a history of lying? Not as far as I know.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  370. Oh I see. Only minorities in the military deserve to have their votes protected.

    Makes sense to me. Their right to vote is more important than anyone else’s.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  371. tye approves of slander, to distract from Obama’s destruction of the US economy.

    SPQR (0ebf30)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7818 secs.