OK, you're a newbie here so I'll walk you through it... True, Obama released his birth certificate - but only after 3 years of resisting and fighting against doing so. When he did, there was nothing bad in it after all. Obama supporter JT thinks that something bad must be in Romney's taxes for him to resist releasing them. All I did was make a similar statement based on JT's quote, changing Romney to Obama, and tax returns to birth certificate. By doing so, I showed JT that Romney not releasing his tax returns DOES NOT mean he is hiding anything. Of course, he could always disagree but that would make him look a like a bit of a hypocrite.

Why is he not releasing his Tax returns like every one else?

Why is he not releasing his Tax returns like everyone else? Oh, if that's what's bothering you don't worry. Romney has already released his latest complete tax return. He will release the 2011 return when it is complete. In 2008, McCain released two years of returns and that was fine. Romney is doing nothing wrong. The Obama campaign and their misguided supporters are trying to distract from the FACT that Obama is a MISERABLE FAILURE as president (hey, JT, CAPS are fun!) .

Exactly. He HAS released his tax returns. This attempt to distract the voters from Obama's miserable record will continue until election day.

OK, you're a newbie here so I'll walk you through it... True, Obama released his birth certificate - but only after 3 years of resisting and fighting against doing so. When he did, there was nothing bad in it after all. Obama supporter JT thinks that something bad must be in Romney's taxes for him to resist releasing them. All I did was make a similar statement based on JT's quote, changing Romney to Obama, and tax returns to birth certificate. By doing so, I showed JT that Romney not releasing his tax returns DOES NOT mean he is hiding anything. Of course, he could always disagree but that would make him look a like a bit of a hypocrite.

Totally wrong! The demand for Obama's birth certificate was ... RACIST.

And you wonder why I referred to you as a troll before?

What are you on about? Birthers are racist by definition.

Actually, they are people who do not believe that Obama was born in the US and therefore was not legally qualified to be president. It has nothing to do with racism. I do not agree with them about the legal point, but the unqualified part is hard to argue with.

What job requires three years of tax returns? To run for POTUS not even one tax return is required. Candidates do it voluntarily.

No tax request is required of me also it was requested as a means of verifying past employment claims made by me in my application.

I could had refused, but good luck getting the job

It is not required of Romney also it is requested, to verify claims of past business experience claims made by him.

He can also refuse, but also good luck getting the job.

They needed your tax return to verify your past employment? Had they ever heard of a telephone? They could simply contact your previous employer and ask about you like every anyone else would.

Wow you are so bright, why don you call them and tell them that.

oh wait because you don't have the number of the appropriate person and don't want to make a large telephone number of telephone calls.

This is getting boring

I guess what I am saying is that you are full of it. Employers do not need a tax return to verify employment.

I guess what I am saying is that you are full of it. Employers do not need a tax return to verify employment.

I have never been asked for my tax return by an employer or heard of anyone who has. What a load of crap.

You lost me in there somewhere.

Ok , let me try to explain

Politicians offer as what they did in the past and how they have behaved , as proof of ability and character. especially Romney who talks about his business performance as a proof of his ability to govern.

But when asked to release his tax returns so that we might be able to corroborate his claims, he refuses.

Do you follow me so far?

Nancy Peloci is just as bad as he is, she had her own tax return issues. so it's no wonder she want's to change the subject.she has no moral authority on the subject,

Just because one thief committed a crime and got away with it, does not mean that we should not demand of other thieves that they don't commit the same crime,

That is much more coherent, thank you.

What do Romney's tax returns have to do with his business performance? One can look at the success of his company and determine that simple fact. Google Bain Capital and find out anything you want to know about the company. To help you determine if Romney was a successful business man, here is a link to the company he founded. Do your research and then let us know if his business venture was profitable or not.

http://www.baincapital.com/

Since we are discussing the previous business career of Romney, please provide some information concerning his opponent's business ventures and success in that field. I would be particularly interested in his management experience and in particular what experience specifically qualifies him for the high position which he currently holds.

Finally, your comment about the two thieves is somewhat confusing. Are you referring to Obama as the first thief?

PS: Now be honest. Tell us you aren't just a teensy bit interested in seeing Obama's college records and transcripts.

What do Romney's tax returns have to do with his business performance?

are you serious?

his tax returns are the definitive record, of his business activities for a particular year made to the IRS , and signed to be true under penalty of law.

When I applied for a mortgage the first thing they asked for was my tax return

When I applied for Fiance visa for my now wife , they asked for my tax returns.

when I applied for a job, among other things the asked for three years of tax returns

Yet Romney, applying for the top job in the country should not have to supply his tax return?

If his opponent used his previous business experiences as a bases for election he should also supply his tax return.

Ohh wait he did.

I am referring to any thief, be it he is Republican, Democrat or any other political affiliation.

PS: if Obama used his college performance as a reason of why he should be re-elected, then he should provide us with a transcript of the records

I am over 70 years old and have NEVER been asked to provide a copy of my tax return to anybody. Perhaps I simply have an honest face.

Romney's opponent had NO previous business experience. What else besides his educational qualifications did he have to run on?

The argument presented by people supporting Obama is there MIGHT be something in one of his tax returns that COULD show some sort of POSSIBLE impropriety. No proof of anything yet the Obama campaign has already labeled Romney as a POSSIBLE felon.

My position is there MIGHT be something in Obama's college records that COULD show some sort of POSSIBLE impropriety. See any difference in the two trains of thought?

So you didn't go to the link provided and look up his company? Yeah, just as I thought.

What job requires three years of tax returns? To run for POTUS not even one tax return is required. Candidates do it voluntarily.

No tax request is required of me also it was requested as a means of verifying past employment claims made by me in my application.

I could had refused, but good luck getting the job

It is not required of Romney also it is requested, to verify claims of past business experience claims made by him.

He can also refuse, but also good luck getting the job.

They needed your tax return to verify your past employment? Had they ever heard of a telephone? They could simply contact your previous employer and ask about you like every anyone else would.

Wow you are so bright, why don you call them and tell them that.

oh wait because you don't have the number of the appropriate person and don't want to make a large telephone number of telephone calls.

This is getting boring

You lost me again.

Is it a large telephone or a large number of telephone calls?

You're bored??

when I applied for a job, among other things the asked for three years of tax returns

What job requires three years of tax returns? To run for POTUS not even one tax return is required. Candidates do it voluntarily.

As a sponsor for a resident alien to the United States I released 3 years of tax returns as requested. It's not like they don't have them already is it?

when I applied for a job, among other things the asked for three years of tax returns

What job requires three years of tax returns? To run for POTUS not even one tax return is required. Candidates do it voluntarily.

As a sponsor for a resident alien to the United States I released 3 years of tax returns as requested. It's not like they don't have them already is it?

They (meaning the government) would have them already but the IRS would not be at liberty to share them with 3rd parties without your consent. There's a lot of personal information that can be gleaned from a person's income tax return other than just their annual earnings as there are numerous things in the tax code intended to reward or penalize particular lifestyle & investment choices. If it were just about earnings the while return would not be needed, copies of W2 forms would be sufficient

As a sponsor for a resident alien to the United States I released 3 years of tax returns as requested. It's not like they don't have them already is it?

They wanted to make sure that you could afford to sponsor someone. I'm pretty sure that Romney has enough money to supplement his meager salary as president.

As a sponsor for a resident alien to the United States I released 3 years of tax returns as requested. It's not like they don't have them already is it?

Same for me & that thought also crossed my mind.

It is not like they dont have them....also who is in charge of the IRS? I believe that

falls under Treasury authority

None other than the tax evader little Timmy Geithner appointed by Obama heads that.

So I am sure if Obama wants a look Timmy has already scurried a copy to him.

As a sponsor for a resident alien to the United States I released 3 years of tax returns as requested. It's not like they don't have them already is it?

Same for me & that thought also crossed my mind.

It is not like they dont have them....also who is in charge of the IRS? I believe that

falls under Treasury authority

None other than the tax evader little Timmy Geithner appointed by Obama heads that.

So I am sure if Obama wants a look Timmy has already scurried a copy to him.

Or Obama/Geitner can just have Romney audited. I'm sure the MSM would support such a move. They don't seem to have a problem with anything Obama has done.

As for regular people needing to show tax returns to sponsor someone...it's a good sign that the government needs us to give them the records and they can't just grab it themselves without our permission.

As for needing a return to verify employment...a W2 is enough to verify whether you worked someplace or not.

Of Tax Returns and College Transcripts...

What will Romney's tax returns show?

That he's rich? We know that.

That maybe he has bank accounts overseas? Doesn't everyone posting here?

That his tax rate is low because his earnings come from capital gains and not salary from some job? We already know that from the return he did release.

That as a rich guy who pays someone else to complete his returns took advantage of all the legal deductions that are available? Nothing wrong with that.

Now, what would Obama's college transcripts show?

What kind of classes he took? No one knows that.

What kind of grades he received? No one knows that.

What professors (influences) he had? No one knows that.

Were his grades good enough to get him into Columbia or did he benefit from a quota? No one knows that.

Were his grades good enough to get into Harvard from Columbia? No one knows that.

The argument in this thread have deteriorate to an absurd level, so I will take my cue from other and also abandon this thread to the clueless.

The argument in this thread have deteriorate to an absurd level, so I will take my cue from other and also abandon this thread to the clueless.

Translation...

'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

A. Lincoln

The argument in this thread have deteriorate to an absurd level, so I will take my cue from other and also abandon this thread to the clueless.

Translation...

'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

A. Lincoln

The argument in this thread have deteriorate to an absurd level, so I will take my cue from other and also abandon this thread to the clueless.

Translation...

'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

A. Lincoln

^^^^

as some posters in this Thread have abundantly proven. me probably being one of them

Voters are finally starting to concentrate on the real issues. It is lucky for Obama that unemployment benefits are so lucrative these days.

"Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill."

http://www.presstv.c...ail/252379.html

Democrats try to register the dead and pets - again...

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.

The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.

The organization has been mass-mailing the forms — pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses — to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.

http://www2.timesdis...rms-ar-2081517/

If Romney wins this election from the racist voter suppression efforts, he will NOT be a legitimately elected president! That would me and most non-white Americans VERY ANGRY!!!!

An overwhelmingly and increasingly white Republican Party, based in the South, will owe its power to discrimination against black and Latino voters, much like the old segregationist Dixiecrats. It’s not that Republicans haven’t run voter suppression operations before, but they’ve been under-the-table dirty tricks, such as calling minority voters with misinformation about polling-place locations and hours. By contrast, this year’s suppression would be the intended outcome of laws that Republicans publicly supported, just as the denial of the franchise to Southern blacks before 1965 was the intended result of laws such as poll taxes. More ominous still, by further estranging minority voters, even as minorities constitute a steadily larger share of the electorate, Republicans will be putting themselves in a position where they increasingly rely on only white voters and where their only path to victory will be the continued suppression of minority votes. A cycle more vicious is hard to imagine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-gops-voter-id-tactics-could-undermine-a-romney-win/2012/07/24/gJQAKQcZ7W_story.html

Requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are is not "suppression". It protects real voters votes.

Requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are is not "suppression". It protects real voters votes.

You know perfectly well what the right wing is doing and why. It is not about protecting anybody. It is about making it hard for legitimate citizens to vote who are likely to vote against them. That is blatantly anti-democratic.

That is hogwash, but it really does not matter as citizens need to prove they are legitimate registered voters in order to vote. That is the law and if they are too lazy to obtain an ID that is their fault. .

That is hogwash, but it really does not matter as citizens need to prove they are legitimate registered voters in order to vote. That is the law and if they are too lazy to obtain an ID that is their fault. .

It is not the law. Each state has its own law. Freedom fighters, anti-racists, are actively fighting the disgusting right wing strategy to disenfranchise poor and minority voters by the millions. The number of fraudulent voters is TINY. The number of disenfranchised citizens will be in the MILLIONS if the right wingers get their way. Romney if he is elected in this sleazy racist way will not be my president. I will consider him a THIEF.

Perhaps the most important challenge got underway Wednesday in the swing state of Pennsylvania, where opponents of a new law requiring IDs told a state judge that the commonwealth’s constitution forbids such a restriction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pa-voter-id-case-opens-in-state-court/2012/07/25/gJQAt28A9W_story.html

There are not "millions" of Americans with no ID's and the poor ones need an ID to cash their welfare checks. The left-wing nuts want to promote rampant voter fraud as voter fraud criminals will vote for Obama.

If Romney wins this election from the racist voter suppression efforts, he will NOT be a legitimately elected president! That would me and most non-white Americans VERY ANGRY!!!!

An overwhelmingly and increasingly white Republican Party, based in the South, will owe its power to discrimination against black and Latino voters, much like the old segregationist Dixiecrats. It’s not that Republicans haven’t run voter suppression operations before, but they’ve been under-the-table dirty tricks, such as calling minority voters with misinformation about polling-place locations and hours. By contrast, this year’s suppression would be the intended outcome of laws that Republicans publicly supported, just as the denial of the franchise to Southern blacks before 1965 was the intended result of laws such as poll taxes. More ominous still, by further estranging minority voters, even as minorities constitute a steadily larger share of the electorate, Republicans will be putting themselves in a position where they increasingly rely on only white voters and where their only path to victory will be the continued suppression of minority votes. A cycle more vicious is hard to imagine.

http://www.washingto...cZ7W_story.html

He we go again. If I Republican wins, it must be an illegitimate result.

Requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are is not "suppression". It protects real voters votes.

You know perfectly well what the right wing is doing and why. It is not about protecting anybody. It is about making it hard for legitimate citizens to vote who are likely to vote against them. That is blatantly anti-democratic.

The poor and minorities still need photo ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol, get their free gov't healthcare, etc and no one cries racism, - so WHY IN THE HELL IS IT SO BAD TO REQUIRE AN ID TO VOTE???!?!?! The answer is, that it isn't. The Democrats hide behind their "racist!" chant when they are all about stealing the elections with the votes of the dead, felons, and pets.

The number of fraudulent voters is TINY.

If that's true, it's only because the Democrats keep getting thwarted. As that old Democrat slogan goes, "Vote early and vote often!"

There are not "millions" of Americans with no ID's and the poor ones need an ID to cash their welfare checks.

....

Yes. There. Are. Please. Stop. Denying. Facts.

http://www.usnews.co...nchise-millions

We too often forget those who could be left behind if we insist upon government-issued IDs. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 10 percent of all eligible voters and 25 percent of eligible African-American voters do not have government-issued IDs. The homeless, the homebound, returning veterans, the elderly, people of color, and college students are all vulnerable to these new laws. In 2008, 2.2 million were turned away at the polls for lack of a proper ID. We have long had a system in place to identify voters at polls—through address verifications and systems of vouching. Given that we are not a country that requires its citizens to carry government-issued IDs, this is an extreme burden on the electorate. While you need an ID to carry out many daily duties of life, one does not need an ID to participate in fundamental rights—free speech, practicing religion, and voting.

There are not "millions" of Americans with no ID's and the poor ones need an ID to cash their welfare checks.

....

Yes. There. Are. Please. Stop. Denying. Facts.

http://www.usnews.co...nchise-millions

We too often forget those who could be left behind if we insist upon government-issued IDs. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 10 percent of all eligible voters and 25 percent of eligible African-American voters do not have government-issued IDs. The homeless, the homebound, returning veterans, the elderly, people of color, and college students are all vulnerable to these new laws. In 2008, 2.2 million were turned away at the polls for lack of a proper ID. We have long had a system in place to identify voters at polls—through address verifications and systems of vouching. Given that we are not a country that requires its citizens to carry government-issued IDs, this is an extreme burden on the electorate. While you need an ID to carry out many daily duties of life, one does not need an ID to participate in fundamental rights—free speech, practicing religion, and voting.

What a crock of steaming crap. Comparing the CIVIC DUTY of going into a voting booth to the fundamental rights of practicing religion or freedom of speech is a moronic. Voting is not one of the "many daily duties of life". Maybe once a year, once every four years if you are talking about electing the leader of the country. To NOT require photo IDs for what is this very important DUTY of citizens, is irresponsible and a slap in the face to democracy. Democrats should be utterly disgusted with themselves for their false outrage at "racists" and attempts to steal elections.

What a crock of steaming crap.

Seconded.

What a crock of steaming crap.

Seconded.

Brilliant level of debate, boys!

Anyway, so who is the REAL amateur. Romney has no competence, no experience whatsoever on foreign policy issues.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-olympics-blunder

Mitt Romney's Olympics blunder stuns No 10 and hands gift to Obama

US presidential hopeful backtracks on warning of 'disconcerting' signs for Games after light-hearted rebuke by David Cameron