Joined: Sep 2009
Funny stuff. I think the ugliness is something deep in your core. You just cant help it.
It comes out in your need to launch personal attacks and in your attempt to paint President Obama as a Marxist. In both cases you havent come even a little bit close to the truth.
Good luck. You definitely need it.
Both parties have grown govt. The difference is that President Obama was given
the 2nd worst recession IN OUR HISTORY to deal with. Stimulus was clearly the way
to help our economy as one can see from Europe's choice of Austerity.
Joined: Sep 2009
Mitt Romney embraces full disclosure of tax returns ... for everyone but himself
If it weren't for the fact that Mitt Romney is stonewalling on the release of his own tax returns, this statement—made during his press availability yesterday in Pennsylvania with Marco Rubio—would have been completely uninteresting:
We really haven't had a discussion yet of putting together a list or of evaluating various candidates. That’s a process where we're looking at various legal resources to help in the process, accounting staff and so forth to take a look at tax returns and things of that nature.
So Mitt Romney thinks it's important to see the tax returns of potential running mates. That's reasonable, right? Sure, he could be a trusting sort of fellow, and take potential candidate at their word if they say their tax returns are clean, but it's prudent to actually check those returns himself. That's what happened in 2008 when John McCain demanded—and received—23 years worth of tax returns from Mitt Romney before selecting Sarah Palin.
The problem, though, is that now that Mitt Romney is the nominee, he's unwilling to be as forthcoming with the public as he expects his potential running mates to be with himself. If Romney has a right to know what's in his veep's tax returns, doesn't the public have a right to know what's in Romney's? If so, why limit it to just one year? What's he hiding?