Mitt Romney, liar.

[A'isha]

Good, we are making progress here. First, admit you are just a lying propagandist. Then move forward to try and perfect your lying propaganda.

The tactics used by the right against Obama since before the election aren't nearly as much fun when they're turned around and used against the right, are they, Mr. College Transcripts?

 

[tyr_13]

Right. I don't believe that either. Just pointing out what you get when I apply your logic re your opponents to...YOUR tribal leaders.

Pot, meet kettle.

It's off topic, and also not an application of the same reasoning as I already pointed out making it a straw man of the reasoning. It's also name calling.

This is what I get for feeding the trolls.

 

[mhaze]

The tactics used by the right against Obama since before the election aren't nearly as much fun when they're turned around and used against the right, are they, Mr. College Transcripts?

I don't know if that's accurate.

But I've noted that your approach is more honest than several others here, who are taking the subject as one of fact. It's clearly lying propaganda, and not fact. Transcripts would be interesting, of course. Why? Take for example, Al Gore. Knowing that he only took one or two courses in science and made a "D" in them definitely influences my assessment of him. Things like that.

As for the tax returns.....only after considerable prodding, if I recall correctly, did John Kerry's wife release any and then it was only one year. And her tax rate was only 12%.

Let's ignore those inconvenient facts, and just try to keep the spotlight on Romney.

Saul Alinsky tactics.

 

[Dymanic]

Citizens United had nothing to do with corporate personhood.

No, as I said, there is a long history of precedence for that. But corporate personhood had everything to do with Citizens United.

The test has been going on for over two hundred years.

Interesting that my stating essentially the same thing proved to you that I don't know what I'm talking about.

...the situation post-Citizens United is the same as it was prior to 2003.

Laughable.

The Citizens United decision made no such declaration and said nothing at all about corporate personhood.

The decision was based on the long-established principle of corporate personhood, its effect is to confer upon corporations the same free speech rights as human beings, and the arguments involved lengthy analyses of First Amendment doctrine.

(FWIW, you've yet to cite a District case, so I'm not even sure what it is you're referring to anyway. I had assumed you were talking about the lower court decision in the Citizens United case that was in part reversed by the Supreme Court decision.)

It was SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

I don't see how one can argue that striking down a portion of McCain-Feingold is responsible for the possibility of the existence of SuperPacs (that didn't exist before the passage of McCain-Feingold).

I've spelled that out: The SCOTUS ruling influenced a District Court ruling which influenced a couple of FEC rulings.

I'd be happy to discuss the details further, and while I still feel that this is not cleanly separable from this thread's topic, I'll allow that beyond a point, it does become too much of a derail. I think I've said just about everything I need to say about that in this thread. Want to carry on, point the way.

 

[mhaze]

It's off topic, and also not an application of the same reasoning as I already pointed out making it a straw man of the reasoning. It's also name calling.

...

The quote I commented on simply noted that Romney, as CEO, had responsibility even if inactive by way of his position. The Bamster might have pled ignorance on F&F in the past, but he's now taken a defensive position, protecting his sheep through executive order. So he's ACTIVELY INVOLVED, and responsible by way of position.

Romney, although you can allege he was responsible by way of position, was inactive.

Romney's little problem doesn't involve hundreds of deaths.

Give up on the logic, and keep on insisting it's off topic.

Doesn't fit the narrative, and the subject is the development of lying propaganda. Just agree with me that the subject is the development of lies, and I'll agree that facts are off topic.

 

[tyr_13]

The quote I commented on simply noted that Romney, as CEO, had responsibility even if inactive by way of his position. The Bamster might have pled ignorance on F&F in the past, but he's now taken a defensive position, protecting his sheep through executive order. So he's ACTIVELY INVOLVED, and responsible by way of position.

Romney, although you can allege he was responsible by way of position, was inactive.

Romney's little problem doesn't involve hundreds of deaths.

Give up on the logic, and keep on insisting it's off topic.

Doesn't fit the narrative, and the subject is the development of lying propaganda. Just agree with me that the subject is the development of lies, and I'll agree that facts are off topic.

That's not what the quote said, not the logic it used, so there is no point in addressing the rest of your assertions. I'm quickly remember why there is no point in engaging you.

 

[A'isha]

As for the tax returns.....only after considerable prodding, if I recall correctly, did John Kerry's wife release any and then it was only one year. And her tax rate was only 12%.

Kerry's wife? Was she running for office? Are people pressuring Ann Romney to release her tax returns?

Tell ya what...how about Mitt Romney himself release just as many years' worth of tax returns as John Kerry himself released when he was running for president.

Deal?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, as I said, there is a long history of precedence for that. But corporate personhood had everything to do with Citizens United.

No, it really didn't.

Laughable.

McCain-Feingold was passed in 2003. Citizens United overturned a portion of it. Therefore, the law on that matter reverted to what it had been prior to 2003. Quite simple. Funny, though, how you find such simple and obvious facts "laughable".

The decision was based on the long-established principle of corporate personhood

No it wasn't.

It was SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

I suppose the irony is lost on you that SpeechNow.org isn't even a corporation. Or did you not even notice that detail? Your argument rather unravels from there.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The decision was based on the long-established principle of corporate personhood, its effect is to confer upon corporations the same free speech rights as human beings, and the arguments involved lengthy analyses of First Amendment doctrine.

Its effect is something other than what it ruled? O.K. But if that's your position, do you retract your statement which is indeed the one I very clearly took issue with:

<snip> the Citizens United ruling confers upon corporations a new and enhanced legal stature by declaring them to be the equal of human beings under the First Amendment free speech clause.

What you're defending now is a different statement than the one I took issue with.

It was SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

The association in question, SpeechNow, wasn't even incorporated, so the lower court didn't make any such declaration either.

I've only scanned SpeechNow, but from what I read the court ruled, in keeping with Citizens United, that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose spending limits on electioneering by associations but it does have the authority to set "organizational, administrative, and reporting requirements". I see nothing about a new legal status for corporations.

I've spelled that out: The SCOTUS ruling influenced a District Court ruling which influenced a couple of FEC rulings.

But you have not. You made a false statement about what the Citizens United decision said, and you claim that based on that case, a lower court decision about an unincorporated association somehow changed the legal status of corporations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Kerry's wife? Was she running for office? Are people pressuring Ann Romney to release her tax returns?

I'm pretty sure the Romneys filed a joint return (as did the Obamas).

FWIW, potential problems with unreleased spouse's tax returns did substantial damage to Geraldine Ferraro's bid to become the first female Vice President.

 

[Dymanic]

I've only scanned SpeechNow

If you'd like to continue this discussion, I recommend you read up a little more on the details. They're important.

I'll also repeat my suggestion that we do not continue that discussion in this thread (in fact, I will decline to do so).

 

[Ziggurat]

If you'd like to continue this discussion, I recommend you read up a little more on the details. They're important.

Indeed, it's quite important that SpeechNow.org isn't a corporation.

Or does that not count as a "detail"?

 

[Dymanic]

Indeed, it's quite important that SpeechNow.org isn't a corporation.

Actually, it's not.

I've created a new thread where I'd be happy to discuss this further.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8457982#post8457982

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, thank you for taking this to that other thread. It's a complete derail.

 

[BenBurch]

`

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...publican-friendly-fire-grows-over-tax-returns

As Mitt Romney continues to fend off attacks from the Obama campaign, he’s facing a form of “friendly fire” that’s becoming less and less friendly.

Prominent Republicans have been voicing frustration with Mr. Romney for weeks now, over everything from his unwillingness to release more of his tax returns to what they see as his campaign’s flat-footedness in responding to Democratic attacks.

Strategic “advice” has been offered up on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and in a series of high-profile tweets from NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley have said publicly they thought Romney should release the tax returns.

And lately, the hand-wringing has taken a more stinging turn.

<SNIP>

Blood in the water and the sharks cannot resist.

 

[mhaze]

Kerry's wife? Was she running for office? Are people pressuring Ann Romney to release her tax returns?

Tell ya what...how about Mitt Romney himself release just as many years' worth of tax returns as John Kerry himself released when he was running for president.

Deal?

Actually, false. Because they filed separate returns, and the massive wealth was reported on the wife's return.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

As for the tax returns.....only after considerable prodding, if I recall correctly, did John Kerry's wife release any and then it was only one year. And her tax rate was only 12%.

Let's ignore those inconvenient facts, and just try to keep the spotlight on Romney.

God, I love to laugh. Please post more often!

 

[BenBurch]

God, I love to laugh. Please post more often!

I've canceled cable. No need for Comedy Central when I can just read JREF.

 

[Unabogie]

Does not matter if you express distaste in any fashion.

Most of your statements are in error. Think about it.

The law of the land already includes a NCIS background check, and other legal requirements for purchasing guns. These were WAIVED for purchasers running guns to Mexican cartels.

No rational argument can be made that "stricter gun laws are necessary". What was STRICT, was WAIVED. Any stricter rules could of course, similarly be waived. This is why I've noted that your post is factually erroneous.

Since the executive order by Obama, Obama owns F&F.

I don't think Romney has a "problem" at all with respect to the 1999-2002 time period and Bain Capital. However, certainly to the extent that one might allege that as CEO, the buck stopped with him, and he was "ultimately responsible", then yes, I think the same argument applies to Obama and F&F, even before his executive order protecting the Justice Department.

After the executive order, there is no question. Further - I'm not suggesting they are "similar". Not possible to consider at the same level of moral depravity, some vague issue about offshoring jobs with a couple hundred deaths resulting from intentional gun trafficing.

So if Kerry is your benchmark, we'll take 20 years from Mitt and 1 year from Ann and call it square?

 

[mhaze]

So if Kerry is your benchmark, we'll take 20 years from Mitt and 1 year from Ann and call it square?

I don't have a "benchmark", and Kerry/wife filed individual returns, likely for tax purposes. Ever heard of that? Strategies to minimize taxes? That's what Romney seems to be being criticized for here.

Not saying the situations are directly comparable, but certainly it's worth noting that Romney paid and is paying a HIGHER PERCENTAGE than the Kerrys (net). And that Mrs. Kerry didn't and would not part with more than 1 year of returns. Should she have? I haven't said that, and I think complying with the legal requirements is adequate.

It's not me that's on the witch hunt here, but the cleared skeptics of JREF. Or not so clear eyed,, as the case may be, in simply following the latest promulgated talking points by your favorite political machine. Of course, there is something rather amusing about such critical thinkers being so easily led down the path to witch hunting. May the luck be with you in the Games.