Multi millionaire finds way to dodge taxes [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

highnote

07-11-2012, 11:07 AM

The Democrat attack dogs are accusing Mitt Romney of hiding his money in Bermuda and Switzerland to avoid taxes.
This issue isn't going to go away until Romney releases more info about his wealth.

If Romney or any person running for office was found to be hiding money in Swiss banks and the Cayman Islands and Bermuda with the intent to avoid taxes should they have to reveal that fact?

If their money is legally parked in those offshore accounts so that they can avoid taxes should that be revealed and how will voters react to it?

What if their money is ILLEGALLY parked in those offshore accounts. Should they have to come clean about it? Do voters have a right to know about their ILLEGAL accounts?

What if it is a grey area? Should voters have the right to know?

Or maybe these questions should not be asked because they are only being asked because the person is running for office and a person running for office should get a free pass?

Greyfox

07-11-2012, 11:43 AM

If Romney or any person running for office was found to be hiding money in Swiss banks and the Cayman Islands and Bermuda with the intent to avoid taxes should they have to reveal that fact?

Romney's dodge so far has been that "All of my money is in a blind trust."
He claims that he doesn't know what his money is in and where it is.
He may be telling the truth, but his words have somewhat of a hollow ring to them.
It may not be any of our business as to how much Romney has made and how he's grown his money.
But Joe Public, who doesn't get a chance to play "hide the thimble" with his tax returns, is going to view Romney as a hypocrite if there is truth to the stories about his monies in the Cayman Islands.
And if such is true surely he knew it would be outed and it would put a damper on his electability?
If it isn't true, then certainly he's been smeared and can wipe some of the stain off by releasing several years of his tax returns.

ElKabong

07-11-2012, 11:48 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48118502/ns/business-personal_finance/#.T_z5HpHAH5w

this country is good enough to make money in it, live in it, but not pay taxes to it according to roughly 1800 different people last year. i suspect most of those were multi-millionaires.

Was one of then Charley Rangel?

Tom

07-11-2012, 11:53 AM

He claims that he doesn't know what his money is in and where it is.

Then make him Sec. of the Treasury!~:D

Greyfox

07-11-2012, 11:58 AM

Then make him Sec. of the Treasury!~:D

:lol: I choked on my coffee on that one. :lol: :lol:

boxcar

07-11-2012, 12:03 PM

The Democrat attack dogs are accusing Mitt Romney of hiding his money in Bermuda and Switzerland to avoid taxes.
This issue isn't going to go away until Romney releases more info about his wealth.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/48125491/#48125491

Video at link above.

Article at:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROMNEY_OFFSHORE_COMPANY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

And the "attack dogs" are making substantiated allegations!? This is the same ol', same ol' garbage from the left. Just say that something is so, and the "seriousness of the charge" is good enough to all but convict? Or just make a sexual accusation and trot out all these women to "confirm" the unsubstantiated allegations? How come no one ever throws the ball back into the Left's court and make them prove their allegations? This is for starters.

Also, when did it become illegal for a U.S. citizen to have money stashed away in offshore accounts?

And if Romney is "hiding" money to legally avoid taxes, so what? Who wrote the tax laws with these kinds of loopholes in them? Who wrote the tax laws that favor the rich? And now the "rich" become the bad guys because they take advantage of those strategically-placed, legal loopholes?

If I were Romney, I'd tell everyone to take a hike! Or...I'd engage in the Show Me Yours and I"ll Show You Mine game. Why not get some political capital out of this? I'd challenge Obama to release all his college records and then promise to release offshore records, if any.

But Romney is too stupid to play this kind of hard ball.

Boxcar

vegasone

07-11-2012, 12:07 PM

Greyfox

07-11-2012, 12:14 PM

And if Romney is "hiding" money to legally avoid taxes, so what?

Boxcar

People don't have to "hide" money if they are legally avoiding taxes.

Even if Romney is doing everything legally, if he has money in the Caymans and in Swiss bank accounts that still looks bad to Joe Public.
The Democrats will gain traction with these smears.
If he couldn't see that happening, he shouldn't have ran for President.
I want Obama out of office as much as anyone.
But unless Romney cleans up the stink that the Democrats are making, he'll look like a hypocrite.
If he can't clean up this mess, then the Republicans need to bring forth another candidate on the floor of the Convention.

boxcar

07-11-2012, 01:18 PM

People don't have to "hide" money if they are legally avoiding taxes.

Even if Romney is doing everything legally, if he has money in the Caymans and in Swiss bank accounts that still looks bad to Joe Public.

If that's the case, then it's time to EDUCATE Joe Public that it didn't look so bad to congress when they wrote these loopholes into the tax laws, and therefore, they're going after the wrong guy. JP needs to go on the attack with Congress that made all this possible and demand that these rich politicians repeal these laws and prohibit them in the future from writing these kinds of loopholes into these laws that favor the rich.

It's absurd to go after people who are behaving legally. And it's equally absurd to take these unsubstantiated allegations as the gospel truth. Where is the proof that Romney has these offshore accounts?

Romney needs to go on the attack here and not lie down like the rug he is. If he does lie down, then this proves he's as morally impoverished as his accusers!

Boxcar

ArlJim78

07-11-2012, 01:23 PM

lamboguy

07-11-2012, 01:29 PM

i think the main difference between Romney and the current president is that Romney worked and ran a business in the private sector, the other guy never had a job in his life.

if Romney figured out how to duck the taxes, more power to him. if he had to go to places like the Cayman Islands or Switzerland, and figured it out, more power to him. at least he is using his head. i rather have a guy that figures stuff like that out running the show, at least he is using his head.

Saratoga_Mike

07-11-2012, 01:45 PM

there is no mess to clean up. he's rich, that's all the democrats are trying to point out. all wealthy people look for ways to shelter their money from taxation. It used to be that there was nothing wrong with becoming rich, now it's some kind of badge of dishonor for some reason, something you must explain or apologize for.

My understanding is he's invested in a few private equity/hedge funds that are domiciled in the Caymans. This does not reduce his tax burden. He would be responsible for taxes on realized gains* just as if the fund was based in the US. If he has tax-deferred monies (and I believe he has a huge retirement account), it needs to be offshore to avoid unrelated business income tax issues.

*or if it's retirement money when he takes it out

wisconsin

07-11-2012, 05:12 PM

It used to be that there was nothing wrong with becoming rich, now it's some kind of badge of dishonor for some reason, something you must explain or apologize for.

Unless you are some rags to riches flash in the pan, like the guy who invented the Snuggie, or a famous actor or musician. Those guys are celebrated in the media. It's the mega rich business owners and fat cat CEO's that strike that raw nerve with wanna-haves.

Striker

07-11-2012, 07:03 PM

Where is the proof that Romney has these offshore accounts?

Romney has admitted to having them. He has given interviews on the subject, and like Greyfox said in an above post he has replied that he does not know much about his money in these accounts but that he does in fact have them. They are in a blind trust.

boxcar

07-11-2012, 07:48 PM

Romney has admitted to having them. He has given interviews on the subject, and like Greyfox said in an above post he has replied that he does not know much about his money in these accounts but that he does in fact have them. They are in a blind trust.

Then so be it. If the Dems want to know more, Romney has plenty of political capital with which to bargain, thanks to Obama. He should tell the Dems that he'll be as transparent as Obama promised he would be prior to his election in '08 and that he'll be happy to dig up more details on that blind trust as soon as Obama shows us his college transcripts, papers he wrote, etc.
A very fair deal, I would say.

Boxcar

Robert Goren

07-11-2012, 08:20 PM

And the "attack dogs" are making substantiated allegations!? This is the same ol', same ol' garbage from the left. Just say that something is so, and the "seriousness of the charge" is good enough to all but convict? Or just make a sexual accusation and trot out all these women to "confirm" the unsubstantiated allegations? How come no one ever throws the ball back into the Left's court and make them prove their allegations? This is for starters.

Also, when did it become illegal for a U.S. citizen to have money stashed away in offshore accounts?

And if Romney is "hiding" money to legally avoid taxes, so what? Who wrote the tax laws with these kinds of loopholes in them? Who wrote the tax laws that favor the rich? And now the "rich" become the bad guys because they take advantage of those strategically-placed, legal loopholes?

If I were Romney, I'd tell everyone to take a hike! Or...I'd engage in the Show Me Yours and I"ll Show You Mine game. Why not get some political capital out of this? I'd challenge Obama to release all his college records and then promise to release offshore records, if any.

But Romney is too stupid to play this kind of hard ball.

BoxcarLobbyists paid by the rich, thats who wrote them and then congressmen who have been bought and paid for by the rich passed them.

boxcar

07-11-2012, 08:37 PM

Lobbyists paid by the rich, thats who wrote them and then congressmen who have been bought and paid for by the rich passed them.

Yeah, okay, we've been down this beaten path before. Did those lobbyists get to vote in the House and the Senate or was it the crooked and corrupt congressman who have an affinity for bribes actually cast their votes for those loopholes? Did the buck stop with the lobbyists or did the buck stop in the pockets of the corrupt politicians you love so much?

And do you think for a minute that the wealthy politicians didn't want those loopholes either? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Rookies

07-11-2012, 09:08 PM

there is no mess to clean up. he's rich, that's all the democrats are trying to point out. all wealthy people look for ways to shelter their money from taxation.
It used to be that there was nothing wrong with becoming rich, now it's some kind of badge of dishonor for some reason, something you must explain or apologize for.

It's not that at all. If he was an 'ordinary' 1%er, who like a chameleon changes from Mitt to Gordon Gekko as his head rotates, that's one thing. Take the corrupt tax havens/loopholes allowed:rolleyes: in The Caymans-Swiss- or the Isle of Man, etc and run away.

EXCEPT, that he is not running away! He's running for POTUS and that ain't gonna cut it with the vast majority of the 99% who can't/won't/ don't understand why individuals can do this with apparent impunity.

It's a problem- HIS.

boxcar

07-11-2012, 09:13 PM

It's not that at all. If he was an 'ordinary' 1%er, who like a chameleon changes from Mitt to Gordon Gekko as his head rotates, that's one thing. Take the corrupt tax havens/loopholes allowed:rolleyes: in The Caymans-Swiss- or the Isle of Man, etc and run away.

EXCEPT, that he is not running away! He's running for POTUS and that ain't gonna cut it with the vast majority of the 99% who can't/won't/ don't understand why individuals can do this with apparent impunity.

It's a problem- HIS.

But it's not a problem he created. Congress lawfully created these loopholes and Rom is simply taking legal advantage of them. If the "99%" are too stupid to understand this, then Romney needs to explain how tax laws are made and why they are made that way. Romney didn't make the tax laws. It's not HIS problem. It's only a problem if he did something illegally.

Boxcar

Saratoga_Mike

07-11-2012, 09:28 PM

It's not that at all. If he was an 'ordinary' 1%er, who like a chameleon changes from Mitt to Gordon Gekko as his head rotates, that's one thing. Take the corrupt tax havens/loopholes allowed:rolleyes: in The Caymans-Swiss- or the Isle of Man, etc and run away.

EXCEPT, that he is not running away! He's running for POTUS and that ain't gonna cut it with the vast majority of the 99% who can't/won't/ don't understand why individuals can do this with apparent impunity.

It's a problem- HIS.

How is Mitt using a loophole by investing in a Cayman-based hedge and/or private equity fund? Please explain it to me. Isn't that what you're implying? If you think there's a legal way for a US citizen to avoid paying taxes by locating investments in the Caymans or Switzerland, you should open a tax-consulting practice and share your knowledge with the wealthy.

Now the perception is a problem, and that's because of ignorance.

highnote

07-11-2012, 09:30 PM

It's not HIS problem.

As a private citizen it is not his problem -- unless the IRS makes it his problem.

As a man running for the President of the United States of America it is his problem because he has to defend his position. Of course, it might turn out to be an insignificant problem if he has a good defense. In fact, it might turn out to be an opportunity if he is able to play his cards right.

Robert Goren

07-11-2012, 09:49 PM

highnote

07-11-2012, 09:49 PM

How is Mitt using a loophole by investing in a Cayman-based hedge and/or private equity fund? Please explain it to me. Isn't that what you're implying? If you think there's a legal way for a US citizen to avoid paying taxes by locating investments in the Caymans or Switzerland, you should open a tax-consulting practice and share your knowledge with the wealthy.

Now the perception is a problem, and that's because of ignorance.

I attended an investment conference several years ago and one of the topics was how to avoid paying taxes by setting up an offshore account and buying some kind of life insurance annuity. I forget how it was structured because it was not something I was interested in. If you can afford to hire the best specialists I am pretty certain you can lower your tax bill dramatically.

The first President Bush paid no income taxes one year because he owned a small plot of land in Texas. Texans pay no state income taxes. He could claim residency in the state even though he was living in Maine at the time because all he had to do was have the intent to build a house on the land and live in Texas within so many years.

I don't think he ever moved there and I don't know if he still can claim residency in Texas, but I do know it was a pretty smart move for legally avoiding paying state income taxes.

The funny thing is that the article claims the lot was a just a small little lot that couldn't support a house big enough for a former U.S. president. :D

Robert Goren

07-11-2012, 09:55 PM

George H W Bush lives in Houston, Tx

highnote

07-11-2012, 10:10 PM

George H W Bush lives in Houston, Tx

I thought he lives in Kennebunkport, Maine.

boxcar

07-11-2012, 10:53 PM

Just to make one point clear. Bills are written by lobbyists because most congressmen are either too dumb or too lazy or both to write them themselves. I didn't know anybody outside of a congressman would bother to argue that point.

I don't give a good flip who writes the bills. Writing bills isn't synonymous with voting for them. They're not too dumb or too lazy to do that when the price is right, are they!?

And I find it revealing that you think congressman are too dumb or too lazy to write a bill, yet you're all giddy and ga ga over those morons shoving ObamaCare, down Americans' throats. Doesn't say very much about your standards, does it?

Boxcar

boxcar

07-11-2012, 11:02 PM

As a private citizen it is not his problem -- unless the IRS makes it his problem.

As a man running for the President of the United States of America it is his problem because he has to defend his position. Of course, it might turn out to be an insignificant problem if he has a good defense. In fact, it might turn out to be an opportunity if he is able to play his cards right.

Wrong! Why does he have to defend a perfectly legal activity!? You see, you, Fox and others have bought into the Dems' false premise that Romney must be some kind of evil human being simply because he has offshore accounts. This is why if I were Romney, I wouldn't entertain the false premise for a nanosecond -- not unless, there was something really in it for me politically, such as challenging Obama to come clean with his college records. Anything short of this, I'd tell the press, the Dems and everyone else that if they want an explanation for why he has offshore accounts, they had better take that issue up with Congress who makes the tax laws. I would tell these brain-dead meat heads that they need to go to the SOURCE of the problem and find out why Congress writes laws like this that lets honest citizens have offshore accounts. End of story!

Here's something to remember: Once someone buys into a false premise, he's has all but lost the argument.

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-11-2012, 11:10 PM

You see, you, Fox and others have bought into the Dems' false premise that Romney must be some kind of evil human being simply because he has offshore accounts.
Boxcar

I did not say that. Please learn to read.
I believe the charges about the offshore accounts are very damaging to his image among the average working Joe Public.
If you have information that suggests that it isn't, present it.
I don't have to be convinced that Obama is lousy.
Joe Public does.

acorn54

07-11-2012, 11:37 PM

basically it is all a numbers game
when the majority of people that vote feel that a strong work ethic, hard work and sacrifice will get them the american dream of owning a house, a new car every year, ect. they will support a system.
when the majority of voters are disillusioned, and feel the system doesn't work except for a few, then you have them looking for scapegoats such as the rich who can take advantages built into the sytem that the middle class can't, AND the poor/lazy that get handouts.

highnote

07-11-2012, 11:40 PM

Wrong! Why does he have to defend a perfectly legal activity!?

You're right. He doesn't have to defend anything. No one can make him defend his actions. However, if he wants to get elected he may have to put up some kind of defense.

You see, you, Fox and others have bought into the Dems' false premise that Romney must be some kind of evil human being simply because he has offshore accounts.

You are wrong on this point. I never said that I buy into a premise that Romney is evil because he has offshore accounts. I can't speak for Fox or others who might have bought into Dems' false pretense. Now that you mention it, I am not even sure Dems' have made a false pretense. But that's a topic for another thread.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to have offshore accounts to legally minimize one's tax bill. But Romney doesn't have to convince me, he has to convince the undecided voters... and the IRS auditors.

This is why if I were Romney, I wouldn't entertain the false premise for a nanosecond -- not unless, there was something really in it for me politically, such as challenging Obama to come clean with his college records. Anything short of this, I'd tell the press, the Dems and everyone else that if they want an explanation for why he has offshore accounts, they had better take that issue up with Congress who makes the tax laws. I would tell these brain-dead meat heads that they need to go to the SOURCE of the problem and find out why Congress writes laws like this that lets honest citizens have offshore accounts. End of story!

This is why I wrote that if he plays his cards right, his offshore accounts could be an opportunity, not a liability.

Greyfox

07-11-2012, 11:47 PM

I can't speak for Fox or others who might have bought into Dems' false pretense. .

No. I did not buy that either.

Obviously you did not read what I wrote 3 or so posts back in my reply to boxcar:

"I did not say that. Please learn to read.
I believe the charges about the offshore accounts are very damaging to his image among the average working Joe Public.
If you have information that suggests that it isn't, present it.
I don't have to be convinced that Obama is lousy.
Joe Public does."

boxcar

07-12-2012, 12:02 AM

No. I did not buy that either.

Obviously you did not read what I wrote 3 or so posts back in my reply to boxcar:

"I did not say that. Please learn to read.
I believe the charges about the offshore accounts are very damaging to his image among the average working Joe Public.
If you have information that suggests that it isn't, present it.
I don't have to be convinced that Obama is lousy.
Joe Public does."

But I don't buy the premise that Joe Public does either! A false premise is a false premise. Joe Public isn't making this an issue. The Dems are! All Romney has to do is to handle this in a smart manner, which he hasn't done thus far...and probably won't.

Boxcar

boxcar

07-12-2012, 12:06 AM

You're right. He doesn't have to defend anything. No one can make him defend his actions. However, if he wants to get elected he may have to put up some kind of defense.

You are wrong on this point. I never said that I buy into a premise that Romney is evil because he has offshore accounts. I can't speak for Fox or others who might have bought into Dems' false pretense. Now that you mention it, I am not even sure Dems' have made a false pretense. But that's a topic for another thread.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to have offshore accounts to legally minimize one's tax bill. But Romney doesn't have to convince me, he has to convince the undecided voters... and the IRS auditors.

When did IRS auditors become part of this story? Is he being audited?

This is why I wrote that if he plays his cards right, his offshore accounts could be an opportunity, not a liability.

Romney isn't smart enough to see this as a potential positive. He's too busy defending what others have defined as his liability. He has already lost this battle.

Boxcar

highnote

07-12-2012, 12:11 AM

No. I did not buy that either.

Obviously you did not read what I wrote 3 or so posts back in my reply to boxcar:

I read what you wrote 3 posts back or so and agreed. I just felt like I wanted to expound on it a bit more.

Further to the point, when you take a look at what boxcar has written, it doesn't withstand a test of logic.

You see, you, Fox and others have bought into the Dems' false premise that Romney must be some kind of evil human being simply because he has offshore accounts.

If you break down this sentence it is false on several levels.

1.) He says I have bought into a premise,

2.) Fox has bought into a premise and

3.) others have bought into a premise.

4.) He says the Dems' made a false premise that Romney is evil because of his offshore accounts.

In order for his statement to be true, all 4 parts must be true.

T T T T = True

If any one part of his statement is false then the entire statement is false.

For example, T T T F = False

1.) is false because I have not bought into the Dems' false premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts. This alone makes his statement false.

2.) may be True or False. I don't know if Fox has bought into the Dems' false premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts.

3.) probably True because no doubt there are some "others" who have bought into the Dems' false premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts.

4.) may be True or False. I don't know if the Dems' have made a false premise that Romney is evil because he has offshore accounts. And even if the Dems' made a premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts there is no way of knowing 1.) whether the premise is true or false or 2.) whether Romney is or isn't evil because of the accounts.

Further, in logic, there is something called DeMorgan's Law and when applied to #4 above the logical equivalent is that the Dems' made a premise about Romney being NOT evil because of his offshore accounts.

In other words, a "false premise about Romney being evil" is the logical equivalent of a "true premise of Romney being NOT evil".

So by boxcar's own statement he says that the dems' premise is that Romney is not evil for having offshore accounts.

And by the way, boxcar, I'm just having a little fun -- not trying to be mean. I know what you meant -- even if that is not what you wrote. ;)

NJ Stinks

07-12-2012, 12:25 AM

This is why I wrote that if he plays his cards right, his offshore accounts could be an opportunity, not a liability.

These offshore accounts can only be a liability for Romney.

First he admits he is in the 13% to 15% bracket.

Then he says he has money in offshore accounts but the money is in blind trusts so he is clueless about this stash.

What percentage of Americans are going to say "I have to vote for this guy. He pays peanuts to the U.S. Treasury yet he has so much money he needs a blind trust to protect his political ambitions. What a role model!"

Question: Can't you just feel the surge for Romney?

Answer: Go fish.

highnote

07-12-2012, 12:28 AM

When did IRS auditors become part of this story? Is he being audited?

You're right. I should have said ... "and the IRS if they were to audit him."

highnote

07-12-2012, 12:35 AM

These offshore accounts can only be a liability for Romney.

First he admits he is in the 13% to 15% bracket.

Then he says he has money in offshore accounts but the money is in blind trusts so he is clueless about this stash.

What percentage of Americans are going to say "I have to vote for this guy. He pays peanuts to the U.S. Treasury yet he has so much money he needs a blind trust to protect his political ambitions. What a role model!"

Question: Can't you just feel the surge for Romney?

Answer: Go fish.

It seems more likely that they will be a liability, but there are a lot of voters who think what he did is OK. I have no problem with his offshore accounts as long as there were done legally. But it doesn't matter what I think, I know that I won't be voting for him. He needs to convince the undecided voters.

Personally, I'd like to see a good third party libertarian throw his or her hat into the ring.

NJ Stinks

07-12-2012, 12:59 AM

Personally, I'd like to see a good third party libertarian throw his or her hat into the ring.

I would too, Highnote. I'm rooting for Obama mainly because of the only alternative.

WPL

07-12-2012, 01:12 AM

The day we start treating American citizens better in taxes than foreigners is the day we begin to prosper as a nation and as a people.

This punish 'the rich' demagoguery is completely un-American.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/306587/re-re-goodbye-and-good-luck-mark-steyn

boxcar

07-12-2012, 02:11 AM

I read what you wrote 3 posts back or so and agreed. I just felt like I wanted to expound on it a bit more.

Further to the point, when you take a look at what boxcar has written, it doesn't withstand a test of logic.

If you break down this sentence it is false on several levels.

1.) He says I have bought into a premise,

2.) Fox has bought into a premise and

3.) others have bought into a premise.

4.) He says the Dems' made a false premise that Romney is evil because of his offshore accounts.

In order for his statement to be true, all 4 parts must be true.

T T T T = True

If any one part of his statement is false then the entire statement is false.

For example, T T T F = False

1.) is false because I have not bought into the Dems' false premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts. This alone makes his statement false.

2.) may be True or False. I don't know if Fox has bought into the Dems' false premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts.

3.) probably True because no doubt there are some "others" who have bought into the Dems' false premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts.

4.) may be True or False. I don't know if the Dems' have made a false premise that Romney is evil because he has offshore accounts. And even if the Dems' made a premise about Romney being evil because of his offshore accounts there is no way of knowing 1.) whether the premise is true or false or 2.) whether Romney is or isn't evil because of the accounts.

Further, in logic, there is something called DeMorgan's Law and when applied to #4 above the logical equivalent is that the Dems' made a premise about Romney being NOT evil because of his offshore accounts.

In other words, a "false premise about Romney being evil" is the logical equivalent of a "true premise of Romney being NOT evil".

So by boxcar's own statement he says that the dems' premise is that Romney is not evil for having offshore accounts.

And by the way, boxcar, I'm just having a little fun -- not trying to be mean. I know what you meant -- even if that is not what you wrote. ;)

I'm having fun, too, because the DEMS have implied that Romney the rich, white guy is evil otherwise why would they be making such a big stink over this? And you and Fox have taken the bait by projecting that the public is going side with the Dems on this issue and think something is amiss with the guy if he doesn't "come clean". But I say that unless the Dems have some solid dirt on Romney (you know...something over and above cheap innuendo), he should tell them to take a flying leap. And I bet a large segment of the public would actually applaud Romney for showing some backbone for once in his life. ;)

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-12-2012, 09:33 AM

And you and Fox have taken the bait by projecting that the public is going side with the Dems on this issue and think something is amiss with the guy if he doesn't "come clean".
Boxcar

There you go again.
No, I have not taken any bait.
You are the one who is in denial if you can't see that Romney has been smeared.
Obama is being depicted as Robin Hood.
Romney is the evil King.
The Democrats are turning this into a soap opera of good versus evil.
Why do you think Obama keeps hammering away at anyone who earns more than $250,000? (Could that be Romney?)
This has been Obama's strategy from the get go.
Romney is being vilianized.
Whether or not he's being rightly or wrongly portrayed as a Demon, is besides the point. Obama's team is doing a good job of that.
While some people pull for the "bad guy" in soap operas, it is human nature to pull for the "white hat."
Obama is the guy in the white hat.
If Republicans such as yourself boxcar cannot see the strategy, I cannot help you.
Obama is the weakest President in my lifetime.
And guess what? He's going to beat Romney.
If Republicans want to beat Obama, they'll need to pick another candidate off the Convention floor.

Tom

07-12-2012, 10:30 AM

Obama is against success.
His entire essence can be summed up in one word - FAILURE.
He hates anyone who succeeds.

fast4522

07-12-2012, 12:06 PM

Multi millionaire finds way to dodge taxes

Why would anyone want to pass on only half of what they are worth at death.

Do not get me wrong, if I have to give something away, the absolute last on the list would be the Federal Government. This is exactly why these people are doing this. And by the way ...

boxcar

07-12-2012, 12:24 PM

There you go again.
No, I have not taken any bait.
You are the one who is in denial if you can't see that Romney has been smeared.
Obama is being depicted as Robin Hood.
Romney is the evil King.
The Democrats are turning this into a soap opera of good versus evil.
Why do you think Obama keeps hammering away at anyone who earns more than $250,000? (Could that be Romney?)
This has been Obama's strategy from the get go.
Romney is being vilianized.
Whether or not he's being rightly or wrongly portrayed as a Demon, is besides the point. Obama's team is doing a good job of that.
While some people pull for the "bad guy" in soap operas, it is human nature to pull for the "white hat."
Obama is the guy in the white hat.
If Republicans such as yourself boxcar cannot see the strategy, I cannot help you.
Obama is the weakest President in my lifetime.
And guess what? He's going to beat Romney.
If Republicans want to beat Obama, they'll need to pick another candidate off the Convention floor.

I know full well he's being smeared and you want him to react to the smear as if he's guilty of wrongdoing! So, yes, you have taken the bait because you have unwittingly bought into the premise the Dems implicitly have put forth -- that he's an evil, greedy, rich, white man.

And for your info, I'm not a Republican. I would not associate myself with the Party of Stupid! :ThmbDown: Had to hold my nose to do it to vote in the primary, but that's Swampland law.

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-12-2012, 12:35 PM

I know full well he's being smeared and you want him to react to the smear as if he's guilty of wrongdoing! So, yes, you have taken the bait because you have unwittingly bought into the premise the Dems implicitly have put forth -- that he's an evil, greedy, rich, white man.

And for your info, I'm not a Republican. I would not associate myself with the Party of Stupid! :ThmbDown: Had to hold my nose to do it to vote in the primary, but that's Swampland law.

Boxcar

I accept that you are not a Republican.
Unfortunately, you are blind to the idea that I have not taken any bait.
You are guilty of shooting the messenger.

boxcar

07-12-2012, 03:07 PM

I accept that you are not a Republican.
Unfortunately, you are blind to the idea that I have not taken any bait.
You are guilty of shooting the messenger.

Fox, now you're being obtuse! Read your #2! When you said that this issue (a phony-baloney one at that) won't go away until Romney cooperates and releases more info, then you just gave tacit approval to the Dems' false premise.

My stance, is that Romney should NOT do that because there is no good reason. There are much better ways to handle this non-issue, which was solely designed by Dems to detract attention away from Obama and this nation's real problems. Romney's money -- HIS OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY -- is no one's business and is not a national concern. And this, sir, is precisely the premise from which Romney should operate and construct his responses. And he could do this in various ways.

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-12-2012, 03:17 PM

Fox, now you're being obtuse! Read your #2! When you said that this issue (a phony-baloney one at that) won't go away until Romney cooperates and releases more info, then you just gave tacit approval to the Dems' false premise.

My stance, is that Romney should NOT do that because there is no good reason. There are much better ways to handle this non-issue, which was solely designed by Dems to detract attention away from Obama and this nation's real problems. Romney's money -- HIS OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY -- is no one's business and is not a national concern. And this, sir, is precisely the premise from which Romney should operate and construct his responses. And he could do this in various ways.

Boxcar

Keep your head in the sand if you wish, but this issue is not going to go away.
I know that it is his money and only his business what he does with it, but that isn't going to stop the Dems from saying he doesn't put America first.
They'll beat that drum until you are sick of it.

Saratoga_Mike

07-12-2012, 04:29 PM

I attended an investment conference several years ago and one of the topics was how to avoid paying taxes by setting up an offshore account and buying some kind of life insurance annuity. I forget how it was structured because it was not something I was interested in. If you can afford to hire the best specialists I am pretty certain you can lower your tax bill dramatically.

The first President Bush paid no income taxes one year because he owned a small plot of land in Texas. Texans pay no state income taxes. He could claim residency in the state even though he was living in Maine at the time because all he had to do was have the intent to build a house on the land and live in Texas within so many years.

I don't think he ever moved there and I don't know if he still can claim residency in Texas, but I do know it was a pretty smart move for legally avoiding paying state income taxes.

The funny thing is that the article claims the lot was a just a small little lot that couldn't support a house big enough for a former U.S. president. :D

Interesting. Was it an annuity product? That's a good way to defer income, but you can do that on-shore, too. Thx.

mostpost

07-12-2012, 04:34 PM

Then so be it. If the Dems want to know more, Romney has plenty of political capital with which to bargain, thanks to Obama. He should tell the Dems that he'll be as transparent as Obama promised he would be prior to his election in '08 and that he'll be happy to dig up more details on that blind trust as soon as Obama shows us his college transcripts, papers he wrote, etc.
A very fair deal, I would say.

Boxcar

A college transcript is equal to an overseas account with millions of dollars in it. That is an interesting concept. Obama's college transcripts had no effect on his election in 2008. The crazies who have been crying for him to release them would never have voted for him anyway, and those who voted for him realize the whole issue is a trojan herring.

Having money in an offshore account is not illegal. Unless it is being done to avoid paying taxes. Or to hide something else. What is Mitt Romney hiding?

The answer may be found in articles originating in Mother Jones magazine and followed up by the Boston Globe. Those articles point to filings with the SEC which indicate that Romney was CEO of Bain Capital three years after he said he resigned that position in 1999. That would put him in charge of that company at the time it was buying other companies and shipping jobs overseas. Perhaps that is why Romney is reluctant to release all of his tax returns.

mostpost

07-12-2012, 04:45 PM

As long as it is legal it is nobody's business what anybody does with their money. This is more misdirection from the real issues and another rich versus not so rich strategy. Obama is about the most opaque president we have had and hidden about aals much of his past as possible.

The problem with that is, how do we know it is legal if we don't know what is being done. If Romney's money is hidden in off shore accounts and his tax returns are unavailable, how do we know how he earned that money.

You say Obama is the most opaque president we have had. Well, the most opaque president has released a dozen years of tax returns. All the opaqueness you refer to is based on manufactured stories like the birth certificate and the college transcripts. None of President Obama'a wealth is in off shore tax shelters. His tax returns for twelve years are public knowledge. His whereabouts from childhood to the White House are well known. Where he went to school and what jobs he held are all matters of public record.

boxcar

07-12-2012, 05:02 PM

Keep your head in the sand if you wish, but this issue is not going to go away.
I know that it is his money and only his business what he does with it, but that isn't going to stop the Dems from saying he doesn't put America first.
They'll beat that drum until you are sick of it.

Allow me to lend you a clue, Fox: The only people who are going to get "sick of it" are Romney and his rah-rah supporters. I don't have a dog in this hunt, remember? I still can't find any positive reason to vote for this lukewarm, barf bag "moderate".

Boxcar

highnote

07-12-2012, 05:12 PM

... won't go away until Romney cooperates and releases more info, then you just gave tacit approval to the Dems' false premise.

My stance, is that Romney should NOT do that because there is no good reason.

Box -- you did it again.

"Romney should NOT do that [release info] because there is no good reason."

According to DeMorgan's Law this is the logical equivalent of "Romney should do that because there is good reason."

Now, I am beginning to wonder if you are doing this on purpose. Maybe you really do want the dems to force Romney to release more info?????? ;)

boxcar

07-12-2012, 05:31 PM

A college transcript is equal to an overseas account with millions of dollars in it. That is an interesting concept. Obama's college transcripts had no effect on his election in 2008. The crazies who have been crying for him to release them would never have voted for him anyway, and those who voted for him realize the whole issue is a trojan herring.

You are a piece of work. How do you know that if those transcripts had been released that they would not have seriously impacted the outcome of the '08 election?

And you missed the concept entirely, which comes as no surprise to me. Obama promised prior to his election that he would run the most transparent administration ever. So, yeah...since the Dems want Romney to be transparent, then Rom should throw that demand right back in their faces and remind them of Obama's pre-election promise and challenge them to remind him of his own promise and to make good on it by releasing those transcripts in return for more of Rom's personal information. This game is called quid pro quo. Got it? Romney needs to sharpen up and show some fight. But, of course, this would take courage, which he is quite short on.

Having money in an offshore account is not illegal. Unless it is being done to avoid paying taxes. Or to hide something else. What is Mitt Romney hiding?

So, what is Obama hiding about his past that he doesn't Americans to know? And furthermore, you just got done saying that offshore accounts aren't illegal unless being used for tax avoidance purposes. So, why do your assume that Rom is avoiding taxes? However, I could understand someone wanting to keep his personal finances hidden as much as possible from public view. The onus is on the Dems to produce proof that Rom has those accounts for nefarious purposes. Then that would be a different story.

Also, how come you don't assume that Obama is hiding his past by keeping his transcripts under lock and key? Want to explain that bit of incongruity to me? Of what is the Marxist-in-Chief so ashamed? Could it be his blatant Marxist views that he expressed in college and/or could it be that he was foreign exchange student?

The answer may be found in articles originating in Mother Jones magazine and followed up by the Boston Globe. Those articles point to filings with the SEC which indicate that Romney was CEO of Bain Capital three years after he said he resigned that position in 1999. That would put him in charge of that company at the time it was buying other companies and shipping jobs overseas. Perhaps that is why Romney is reluctant to release all of his tax returns.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps this hurricane season, the U.S. will get hit with 50 Cat-5 storms....perhaps. :rolleyes:

And by the way, Mr. Choirboy, I'm waiting for your response to my post about the very, very, very capitalistic-loving Roman Catholic Church and its hundreds of billions of dollars (if indeed not more!) in accumulated and hoarded wealth , it has stashed away all over the globe. Bar none, you are the quintessential defender on this forum of all that is evil, so I thought for sure you would have come up with a rational explanation by now of how you could associate yourself with such a greedy, religion-for-obscene profit institution that I bet you even support with your weekly "tithing". (Or are you as stingy as Joe BiteMe is with his charitable contributions?) Surely a cat didn't steal your tongue away, did he?

Boxcar

boxcar

07-12-2012, 05:36 PM

Box -- you did it again.

"Romney should NOT do that [release info] because there is no good reason."

According to DeMorgan's Law this is the logical equivalent of "Romney should do that because there is good reason."

Now, I am beginning to wonder if you are doing this on purpose. Maybe you really do want the dems to force Romney to release more info?????? ;)

There is no other way of stating this. Should I say, Rom should not do this because there is good reason? :rolleyes: Or I could have said, Rom should not do this because there is good reason not to. :rolleyes:

Or what if I said, Rom shouldn't do this because there is no legal reason to do it? Would this mean, then, that there is legal reason to do it? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

elysiantraveller

07-12-2012, 06:32 PM

And you missed the concept entirely, which comes as no surprise to me. Obama promised prior to his election that he would run the most transparent administration ever. So, yeah...since the Dems want Romney to be transparent, then Rom should throw that demand right back in their faces and remind them of Obama's pre-election promise and challenge them to remind him of his own promise and to make good on it by releasing those transcripts in return for more of Rom's personal information. This game is called quid pro quo. Got it? Romney needs to sharpen up and show some fight. But, of course, this would take courage, which he is quite short on.

You are dead wrong here... as is Fox IMO...

He shouldn't engage the Democrats on this or any other issue that doesn't fit into his "fix the economy" message.

Gay marriage, amnesty, Bain, evil rich....

You can't yield the floor if you refuse to step on it in the first place.

highnote

07-12-2012, 08:43 PM

Interesting. Was it an annuity product? That's a good way to defer income, but you can do that on-shore, too. Thx.

I honestly don't remember the details as it has been at least 5 years since the conference. I'll see if I can dig up some info, but I think I've thrown most of it away.

All I can remember is that it was an insurance product and it was off-shore and it helped to minimize or avoid a tax liability. I remember that the speaker said it was getting harder and harder to find loopholes because the IRS was clamping down.

highnote

07-12-2012, 08:55 PM

Let me see if I can respond in a meaningful and respectful way to this fun exercise in logic. :)

Check out this link if you really want to make your head spin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws

There is no other way of stating this. Should I say, Rom should not do this because there is good reason? :rolleyes:

I think this is what you meant to write, but what you wrote in your previous post does not mean the same as this.

Or I could have said, Rom should not do this because there is good reason not to. :rolleyes:

This, I think, is NOT want you meant. The logical equivalent of this is "Rom should do this because there is a good reason to."

Or what if I said, Rom shouldn't do this because there is no legal reason to do it? Would this mean, then, that there is legal reason to do it? :rolleyes:

It would not mean there is a legal reason to do it. You have to look at the whole statement. The logical equivalent is that "Rom should do this because there is legal reason to do it."

There is a legal reason to do it, but only if you say that Rom should do it. That is the same as saying "Rom shouldn't do it because there is no legal reason to do it."

In other words, you can't just take one half of the sentence and reverse it and call it the same. You have to reverse both parts of the statement to make it the logical equivalent. It's probably more accurate to say that you have to reverse the negation of both parts of the statement to arrive at the logical equivalent.

Tom

07-12-2012, 09:03 PM

Having money in an offshore account is not illegal. Unless it is being done to avoid paying taxes. Or to hide something else. What is Mitt Romney hiding?

Do you have ANY evidence that he is hiding ANYthing?
Or you just another freaking democrat parrot?
How about the bitch dem who is making all the accusations?
What is SHE hiding, because SHE has money offshore as well.

What a bunch of weak minds you dems are.What a sorry lot of lemmings.
You don't care what Obama wrote in college because you would never understand a paper written at the college level! :lol:

newtothegame

07-12-2012, 09:34 PM

newtothegame

07-12-2012, 09:45 PM

boxcar

07-12-2012, 09:50 PM

You are dead wrong here... as is Fox IMO...

He shouldn't engage the Democrats on this or any other issue that doesn't fit into his "fix the economy" message.

Gay marriage, amnesty, Bain, evil rich....

You can't yield the floor if you refuse to step on it in the first place.

And you don't have a clue. Romney will not win this election if he chooses to sound like a broken record, one-trick pony. This is one main reasons I have long maintained that this guy is not right for America. What this nation really needs is someone to expose what the Left is doing to this country and then turn around and cogently articulate Constitutional Conservatism to the country.

Also, if he played his cards right and he had a clue on how to handle these bogus issues, he not only could defuse the bombs the Dems toss into his court, but he could toss his own legit ones back into theirs. There is soooooo very much ammo he could use against Obama just by heaping Jumbo Ears' own words upon his own head like red hot burning coals. But he won't do that. He's too politically correct and it will cost him the election just like it cost McCain.

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-12-2012, 09:52 PM

EXACTLY!!!!! Which is what I posted in anotger thread! This is ONLY a diversionary tactic to sway from what the real issues need to stay on.
Unemployement, deficit, unemployment, jobs, unemployment...well you all get the point!

Obama can't run on his record.
So we are going to see a lot of dirty street fighting and mud slinging from the Democrats.
Of course at one time Obama presented himself as being above all that.
His true nature is now surfacing.
Hopefully the debates will focus on issues and stay off this shit flinging.

elysiantraveller

07-12-2012, 10:03 PM

And you don't have a clue. Romney will not win this election if he chooses to sound like a broken record, one-trick pony. This is one main reasons I have long maintained that this guy is not right for America. What this nation really needs is someone to expose what the Left is doing to this country and then turn around and cogently articulate Constitutional Conservatism to the country.

Also, if he played his cards right and he had a clue on how to handle these bogus issues, he not only could defuse the bombs the Dems toss into his court, but he could toss his own legit ones back into theirs. There is soooooo very much ammo he could use against Obama just by heaping Jumbo Ears' own words upon his own head like red hot burning coals. But he won't do that. He's too politically correct and it will cost him the election just like it cost McCain.

Boxcar

You don't get it...

By taking the time to answer these things you are investing time and money into arguments that the Democrats want to have... You are thus letting them frame the discussion.

The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is never going to be more likeable than the charismatic, well-spoken, sports loving, ESPN visiting, hip, black guy.... its never going to happen.... hell, he isn't more likeable... and the more time he spends trying to be more likeable the more he will look like the angry, money counting, teetotalling, scrooge the Democrats want to make him out to be...

so why bother?

Stick to what you are good at. Let Karl Rove handle the unpleasantness... :cool:

newtothegame

07-12-2012, 10:06 PM

Obama can't run on his record.
So we are going to see a lot of dirty street fighting and mud slinging from the Democrats.
Of course at one time Obama presented himself as being above all that.
His true nature is now surfacing.
Hopefully the debates will focus on issues and stay off this shit flinging.
It's romney's best chance! if he gets himself into the mudslinging, he has no shot in my opinion. Not too mention, I truly believe the American people are tired of the b.s.
Stay on topic, pound Obama's record as prez on the economy and win a close race.

elysiantraveller

07-12-2012, 10:10 PM

It's romney's best chance! if he gets himself into the mudslinging, he has no shot in my opinion. Not too mention, I truly believe the American people are tired of the b.s.
Stay on topic, pound Obama's record as prez on the economy and win a close race.

Yep... you know who is polling the worst right now?.... its not a candidate or party... its the Media.

Political Fatigue is starting to set in which is a great thing for the GOP in my opinion.

boxcar

07-12-2012, 10:22 PM

You don't get it...

By taking the time to answer these things you are investing time and money into arguments that the Democrats want to have... You are thus letting them frame the discussion.

The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is never going to be more likeable than the charismatic, well-spoken, sports loving, ESPN visiting, hip, black guy.... its never going to happen.... hell, he isn't more likeable... and the more time he spends trying to be more likeable the more he will look like the angry, money counting, teetotalling, scrooge the Democrats want to make him out to be...

so why bother?

Stick to what you are good at. Let Karl Rove handle the unpleasantness... :cool:

No, you don't let them frame the discussion if you know how to play the hand they're dealing you. Is this so difficult to understand? Romney has to turn the tables here and become the aggressor. He needs to take the fight to Obama. He needs to rattle this narcissist's cage. (And these kind rattle easily!) He needs to keep Obama on his heels. That's what needs to be done with these Obama types. But is he going to do this? No, of course not. Therefore, it''ll be four more glorious years for the "hip black guy".

If you want a clue on how just how clueless Romney is, find the vids and tapes on his recent visit to the NAACP. Again, he had a golden opportunity to fire solid salvos at their fearless black leader but did he? No, he just stood there like the white, stupid, clueless, politically-correct honky he is and took their many boos in stride. Why even bother to show up? (To "vote present" like Obama did when he was senator? :rolleyes: ) What a complete waste this guy is.

Boxcar

elysiantraveller

07-12-2012, 10:40 PM

No, you don't let them frame the discussion if you know how to play the hand they're dealing you. Is this so difficult to understand? Romney has to turn the tables here and become the aggressor. He needs to take the fight to Obama. He needs to rattle this narcissist's cage. (And these kind rattle easily!) He needs to keep Obama on his heels. That's what needs to be done with these Obama types. But is he going to do this? No, of course not. Therefore, it''ll be four more glorious years for the "hip black guy".

What would you want to talk about... the birther issue? :faint: Seriously, its old and worn out and not original anymore. The hand they are dealing you is "hey, we'll do cool and charismatic and you do citizen kane, you up for it?"

I know you have a million sharp retorts rolling around in that head of yours that Romney should be saying back. Of the "ah ha! Gotcha!" type. Be honest here, do you think the handlers for the president haven't been anticipating and I dare say even hoping for them?...

Nope stick to the topic that you win on and let the super-pacs handle the defamation. At least thats what I would do...

bigmack

07-12-2012, 10:55 PM

Good Gawd. Boxcar will struggle to find anything to deride my boy.

Easy enough to throw BO's lies back in face.

L6b9F9IiAZw#!

mostpost

07-12-2012, 11:20 PM

Do you have ANY evidence that he is hiding ANYthing?
If he's not hiding anything, then why is he refusing to disclose anything. When the mom asks the kid if his hands are clean, he shows them proudly-unless they're dirty. Romney is refusing to show his Mitts. I wonder why.
Or you just another freaking democrat parrot?
A PARROT?? You've got to be kidding me!! er, you wouldn't happen to have a cracker, would you?
How about the bitch dem who is making all the accusations?
What is SHE hiding, because SHE has money offshore as well.
Foreign investments. Off shore bank accounts. Not the same thing. Wassermann-Schultz and Pelosi have investments in mutual funds with stock in foreign company. Investments on which they have paid US federal income tax. We know this because we have seen their returns. They don't have offshore accounts where they are hiding money. Romney does.

What a bunch of weak minds you dems are.What a sorry lot of lemmings.
You don't care what Obama wrote in college because you would never understand a paper written at the college level! :lol:

I don't care what Obama wrote in college because he is no longer in college. I am more interested in what he is doing in the real world.

boxcar

07-13-2012, 12:31 AM

What would you want to talk about... the birther issue? :faint: Seriously, its old and worn out and not original anymore. The hand they are dealing you is "hey, we'll do cool and charismatic and you do citizen kane, you up for it?"

I know you have a million sharp retorts rolling around in that head of yours that Romney should be saying back. Of the "ah ha! Gotcha!" type. Be honest here, do you think the handlers for the president haven't been anticipating and I dare say even hoping for them?...

Nope stick to the topic that you win on and let the super-pacs handle the defamation. At least thats what I would do...

Oh, stick "TO THE TOPIC" and repeat that ad nauseam until he puts half the electorate to sleep or outright kills them with boredom,

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

Romney: It's the economy, stupid.

Romney, It's jobs, stupid.

Romney: It's unemployment, stupid

But I do have to give him some credit. He has three very different and original ways of talking about the the same topic. :rolleyes: Meanwhile, more and more people are getting sick of listening to him.

But you know what? I can actually understand your sentiment. This is exactly what the country wants -- a nice, dull, boring, uninteresting, unimaginative, uncreative, unenthusiastic, low-keyed, politically-correct, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road, compromising, aisle-crossing, electable moderate. (The only adjective that doesn't belong here is the last one.) :lol: :lol:

Obama will eat Romney's lunch come November.

Boxcar

boxcar

07-13-2012, 12:49 AM

I don't care what Obama wrote in college because he is no longer in college. I am more interested in what he is doing in the real world.

Yeah, I can understand your lust for willful ignorance. Why would anyone want to catch a glimpse of the real Obama and just how radical he was? :rolleyes:

Still working on that explanation for your love for Big, Profitable, Greedy Church. ("Big Church". I like that. Has a nice ring to it.) Or do you prefer Big Religion? Puts the RCC right in the same league with Big Pharm, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Banks and all the other greedy Big Industries.

Boxcar
P.S. Hey, did you hear that Big Religion is suing Big Gov over the Church's First Amendment Rights due to the contraception issue? Man...I bet you're really conflicted over that one, eh? Care to share with us in whose corner you have parked your stool?

highnote

07-13-2012, 11:15 PM

If Obama gets re-elected would this be validation that Americans are satisified with the new Health Care Act?

If Romney loses, what message did we get from him?

boxcar

07-14-2012, 12:17 AM

If Romney loses, what message did we get from him?

That the people would be better off voting for the devil they know instead of one they don't. :D

Boxcar

highnote

07-14-2012, 12:21 AM

That the people would be better off voting for the devil they know instead of one they don't. :D

Boxcar

It is hard to believe that in a country of 300 million people there are not better candidates out there to oppose the current president.

boxcar

07-14-2012, 12:34 AM

It is hard to believe that in a country of 300 million people there are not better candidates out there to oppose the current president.

The candidates that will make it through the process are all hand-picked by the global plutocracy. So relax and enjoy the ride. But don't think for a moment that 300 million people are in the driver's seat.

Boxcar

highnote

07-14-2012, 02:41 AM

The candidates that will make it through the process are all hand-picked by the global plutocracy. So relax and enjoy the ride. But don't think for a moment that 300 million people are in the driver's seat.

Boxcar

The only time 300 million would be in the driver's seat is when a revolution would occur. It's happened before in history and I have to give Ol' Tom Jefferson credit for being an advocate of it.

PaceAdvantage

07-14-2012, 02:44 AM

It is hard to believe that in a country of 300 million people there are not better candidates out there to oppose the current president.I don't see that really. What's so terrible about Romney thus far? Successful business man? Hey, yeah, that's God-awful...why would we want that?

A Republican who got elected Governor of one of the bluest states in the nation...yeah...why would we want someone like that who obviously has appealed to both sides in the past...yuck!

While Governor, he cut spending, which in part led to the elimination of a $1.5B deficit...wow...he really sucks!

He went to Stanford University and BYU where he graduated with "highest honors." Then he went on to graduate cum laude from Harvard Law School where he also obtained an MBA in their joint JD/MBA program coordinated between Harvard Law and Harvard Business.

Yeah, he's a real slacker and someone you really don't want running for President...

With all due respect...where do you get this shit from?

I got mine from Wikipedia by the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

PaceAdvantage

07-14-2012, 03:07 AM

So let's see...by all accounts Romney is a highly intelligent, highly articulate, successful businessman and Governor, and all around wholesome family man.

Come to think of it, in this country of 300 million, he sounds like a pretty damn good choice to me...

bigmack

07-14-2012, 03:50 AM

Johnny Bravo (me) has a sense about these things. I smell a MUCH more efficient government. Anyone who's known Mitt for a spell says he is constantly gathering information and asking questions. That's my kind of cat.

Drinks it all in and makes a decision. I smell a potential outsourcing to the private sector for things like fraud in disability, food stamps, the woiks. Incentivize it and watch that waste drop like rock. The energy industry will bust through meteorically.

Don't think I can go so far as "Happy Days will be here again" but it's going to be another positive jolt, not unlike 80 with RR.

They're trying to dirty a guy this L7? Camp Obama is going to come out this election smelling like a turd, AND losing.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MRUiwBUQtmw/T-Xr6sMTRaI/AAAAAAAAOsY/7QUGNm_LD4E/s640/mittromney+family1.jpg

highnote

07-14-2012, 04:17 AM

Yeah, he's a real slacker and someone you really don't want running for President...

With all due respect...where do you get this shit from?

You misinterpreted my message. I was responding, more or less, to what boxcar said about Obama going to be eating Romney's lunch at the end of his post #72.

Let's assume that is true -- that Obama will win easily in the election.

Then in 300 million people it is hard to believe there is no one better to oppose Obama is a reasonable statement.

If I'm talking in general, then you would be right to question my "shit". But I was responding to the comments that made up the thread between boxcar and me.

Context.

highnote

07-14-2012, 04:25 AM

They're trying to dirty a guy this L7? Camp Obama is going to come out this election smelling like a turd, AND losing.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MRUiwBUQtmw/T-Xr6sMTRaI/AAAAAAAAOsY/7QUGNm_LD4E/s640/mittromney+family1.jpg

You hit the nail on the head. And this picture is why I said I like Romney. I am sure he is a nice guy. That is why he needs to explain the discrepancy between hm saying he left as CEO of Bain in 1999 and the fact that Bain's annual report filings with SEC claims he was CEO until 2002. I'm sure there is probably a good reason for it. So just tell everyone. If it was an honest mistake we'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- at least I will. But trying to talk around the issue doesn't work in his favor, in my opinion.

elysiantraveller

07-14-2012, 09:59 AM

You hit the nail on the head. And this picture is why I said I like Romney. I am sure he is a nice guy. That is why he needs to explain the discrepancy between hm saying he left as CEO of Bain in 1999 and the fact that Bain's annual report filings with SEC claims he was CEO until 2002. I'm sure there is probably a good reason for it. So just tell everyone. If it was an honest mistake we'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- at least I will. But trying to talk around the issue doesn't work in his favor, in my opinion.

Okay... they aren't annual report filings... they are essentially trade tickets. The buys or sells of companies and they typically require the signature of an officer. In 3 years he only signed 6 of them, probably mostly out of convenience, and mostly because he was still considered an officer of the company.

You keep asking this question and it keeps getting answered.

If Romney says, "I was still considered an officer at the company so they had me sign stuff from time to time" does that explanation work for you?

newtothegame

07-14-2012, 11:04 AM

What I find amazing is that the left and some here who claim to not be left or right, continually want to find an answer to this Bain thing. It has been explained several times.
Not good enough, they NEED to know more before they will vote for the guy.
I mean what, "is he hiding something"?????
Yet, on the other side, we know next to NOTHING about our current sitting president and not a peep.
It's not important that he pretty much lied and made up stories in his book about his family, its not important that we know nothing about his college years, its not important that he ran around with serious extremist, its not important that he is an admitted past drug user, nope, none of that is important....
BUT DAMN, ROMNEY cut a guys hair back in his school days...can you believe that sh!t!! I can't possibly vote for this guy. His barber skills are atrocious!!!
:bang:

boxcar

07-14-2012, 11:23 AM

The only time 300 million would be in the driver's seat is when a revolution would occur. It's happened before in history and I have to give Ol' Tom Jefferson credit for being an advocate of it.

You have finally said something with which I agree; however this country is so badly divided, there would be a civil war long before a revolution. Why do you think the Left for all these many decades have used Identity Politics and Class Warfare to divide this country? They know a house divided against itself cannot stand. America has no stomach -- no moral fortitude or courage -- to even get out and boycott the airlines in protest of the tyrannical TSA policies, or to go in the streets and call for a general strike, let alone to fight a revolution! It will never happen.

Thomas Jefferson was also staunchly opposed to the U.S. having a central bank, as I'm sure you are aware. How has that worked out? A Rothschild once boasted:

"Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!"

And again,

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838 once said:

"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".

As I said, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride on which we're all being taken. The Banksters own this nation lock, stock and barrel.

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-14-2012, 12:04 PM

The candidates that will make it through the process are all hand-picked by the global plutocracy. So relax and enjoy the ride. But don't think for a moment that 300 million people are in the driver's seat.

Boxcar

Clearly Jessie Ventura would be a good choice for President for you.
To a point, he shares a similar world view to yours.

elysiantraveller

07-14-2012, 12:10 PM

Clearly Jessie Ventura would be a good choice for President for you.
To a point, he shares a similar world view to yours.

Why haven't we given Minnesota to Canada yet?

Rookies

07-14-2012, 02:34 PM

Why haven't we given Minnesota to Canada yet?

Uhhh... we don't need the H2O- YOU DO! :lol:

boxcar

07-14-2012, 02:46 PM

Clearly Jessie Ventura would be a good choice for President for you.
To a point, he shares a similar world view to yours.

Clearly, you fall into the latter category of the following statement:

"The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, [b]while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."

The concept here is actually very easy to understand, yet it is most often met with extreme objection for some odd reason: Money is Power. Even scripture wisely warns against falling prey to moneylenders.

Tell me, Fox: If you were a greedy, unscrupulous banker, to what kind of country would you target your money lending services: To politically conservative ones that place great emphasis within their culture on fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, resourcefulness and self-reliance, or on socialist countries wherein politicians' primary interest is procuring career-enhancing and sustaining favors from the electorate by promising the people and delivering to them all manner of expensive social services and an equally pricey cost of government to manage those services by employing bureaucrats and other public workers to administrate them, knowing that such countries would need to borrow huge sums of money for implementation purposes, and also knowing that the debts these kinds of governments run up would be secured loans on the backs of their taxpayers? Which kind of nation would be your prime marketing target? (If you seriously have any doubts as to which type, all I can say is: SEE EUROPE.

Boxcar

Greyfox

07-14-2012, 03:26 PM

Clearly, you fall into the latter category of the following statement:

"The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, [b]while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." Boxcar

You are making assumptions as to where I fall in the sea of humanity which may or may not have any validity. Keep guessing.

The concept here is actually very easy to understand, yet it is most often met with extreme objection for some odd reason: Money is Power. Even scripture wisely warns against falling prey to moneylenders.Boxcar

No disagreement there. I think the majority of posters here understand that.
Information is also power. (Of course with money you can buy information.
Have you needed money to do that?)

Tell me, Fox: If you were a greedy, unscrupulous banker, to what kind of country would you target your money lending services: To politically conservative ones that place great emphasis within their culture on fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, resourcefulness and self-reliance, or on socialist countries wherein politicians' primary interest is procuring career-enhancing and sustaining favors from the electorate by promising the people and delivering to them all manner of expensive social services and an equally pricey cost of government to manage those services by employing bureaucrats and other public workers to administrate them, knowing that such countries would need to borrow huge sums of money for implementation purposes, and also knowing that the debts these kinds of governments run up would be secured loans on the backs of their taxpayers? Which kind of nation would be your prime marketing target? (If you seriously have any doubts as to which type, all I can say is: SEE EUROPE.

Boxcar

a. I may be a greedy banker. Keep guessing.
b. Your implication is that Obama is a puppet of the Bilderberg school and is being forced to do their bidding. I see him as having heavy socialist leanings that do not need much of a nudge from Bilderbergs, Rothchilds etc. if you believe that is his goal.

boxcar

07-14-2012, 04:06 PM

You are making assumptions as to where I fall in the sea of humanity which may or may not have any validity. Keep guessing.

No disagreement there. I think the majority of posters here understand that.
Information is also power. (Of course with money you can buy information.
Have you needed money to do that?)

a. I may be a greedy banker. Keep guessing.
b. Your implication is that Obama is a puppet of the Bilderberg school and is being forced to do their bidding. I see him as having heavy socialist leanings that do not need much of a nudge from Bilderbergs, Rothchilds etc. if you believe that is his goal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: So, let me guess: Information is more powerful than money.
But when you don't have the money to put that precious information to use, of what good is.

And no, you guessed incorrectly on "b". My implication is that the Banksters are the global plutocracy and they are in charge! They are the "wizard" behind the curtain. The moneylenders are the true powers of the world and pull the stings of all the nations that have central banks! These banksters own these central banks that print, control and lend money to these governments.

Did you know, Mr. Fox, that there are only a handful of nations in the world that haven't gone "central" yet? Iraq is one. Iran is another. Afghanistan, I think, now has one. And there are but two or three more that haven't yet.

The "love of money", Fox is the root of all evil. And there is an awful lot of evil in the world. There are an awful lot of ways these greedy bankers can profit from the politics of a nation. Wars, market manipulations, currency manipulations -- all these and much more well within the power and grasp of these super wealthy people. Heck...Soros is well known for bringing down governments, yet even his vast wealth pales to the incomprehensible fortune of the House of Rothschild. Trust me this: All the political heads of all civilized nations bow to the throne of the Banksters.

Boxcar

But you still haven't answered my question: If you were a rich, greedy, unscrupulous bankster, would you prefer offering your services to a socialist country or to a fiscally conservative one?n Which kind of country would enrich your life?

Boxcar