Harry Reid: "Bain source says Romney paid no taxes for 10 years"

[Balt]

Reference the Factcheck piece linked above, where the raised seal is clearly visible. It puts the lie to Cybr's bullshit.

I don't doubt it in the least. Pisses me off that birthers are so stupid they still bring up this BS.

 

[Bitek]

Forget Harry Reid, why can't Mitt just back up his own words?

He says he's paid at least 13% OK, so prove it. To quote Reagan, "Trust but verify."

Ann Romney just says if they release it, they'll just get attacked. Why? What in in there?
Ann: "There’s nothing we’re hiding"[other than millions of dollars in the Cayman islands and Switzerland]

Looks to be there is.

 

[shira]

He refuses to name the person, so that person can verify it is true. Check this out:

I heard from someone on the Internet that shira eats asian babies for breakfast twice a year, on the two equinoxes.

There, since I said I heard it from some unnamed source, it must be true - at least according to your logic. Now, everyone else will say it is a lie until it is properly sourced and vetted, but not you. You have to believe it is true if you wish your own logic to remain sound. So which is it, do you admit your own logic fails or do you admit you eat babies?

Your example is totally illogical. You're confusing the truth value of the claim "I was told xyz by someone at Bain" with the truth value of xyz.

You may well have "heard from someone on the Internet" that I eat babies. But that doesn't make the statement "shira eats babies" true.

Reid could easily be protecting a source who would get in serious trouble and lose his job at Bain if his identity were revealed. So it's completely believable that Reid could hear something highly controversial, report it, yet not reveal his source. News reporters do that kind of thing all the time.

It's easy to prove that YOU are a liar, since you've been caught in lies by the Mods, right here on ATPN. But you're claiming that Reid is a liar. Where's you proof?

 

[Balt]

Your example is totally illogical. You're confusing the truth value of the claim "I was told xyz by someone at Bain" with the truth value of xyz.

You may well have "heard from someone on the Internet" that I eat babies. But that doesn't make the statement "shira eats babies" true.

Reid could easily be protecting a source who would get in serious trouble and lose his job at Bain if his identity were revealed. So it's completely believable that Reid could hear something highly controversial, report it, yet not reveal his source. News reporters do that kind of thing all the time.

It's easy to prove that YOU are a liar, since you've been caught in lies by the Mods, right here on ATPN. But you're claiming that Reid is a liar. Where's you proof?

I'll be honest. I'm not sure Reid is being completely truthful about his "I heard..." story. But the fact is, from a political standpoint, it's a pretty cunning move. It's already very apparent that Romney has something in his tax returns that he doesn't want revealed. In order to prove that Reid is a liar (or at least mistaken), he'll have to release those tax returns.

In either case, it's win-win. Reid is either right (which hurts Romney) or he's wrong but Romney has to reveal something embarrassing to prove it (which also hurts Romney). And even if Romney has nothing to hide, which seem doubtful at this point, it's only Reid who made the accusation. Americans already hold a low opinion of Congress anyway. It doesn't necessarily hurt Obama's re-election chances.

The longer Romney holds out, the more I'm convinced there really are skeletons in the closet.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm going to give all of you a 'heads-up' on passports.

Only people born in Texas and California are required to provide long-form versions of their birth certificates to receive a passport. A very recently enacted regulation also requires that the parent or parents of an applicant be listed on the birth certificate.

President Obama could have, at any time, submitted an abstract from the state or even territory of Hawaii and still have received his passport. He would not have needed special treatment to do so.

And FYI, not all embossed seals or intaglio printings are going to show up on a digital scan. Sometimes they are so faint you can barely feel them when you run a finger over them. That doesn't mean they aren't there.

Exactly, though I'm sure Cybrsage will evade you, just as he did me when I offered similar information. He has to stick to his script, you know.

 

[berzerker60]

I just want 1 year of returns, 2009, when thousands of well heeled & felonious offshore tax evaders took an amnesty deal in the face of increased cooperation by tax haven govts, Switzerland being foremost. Nearly 15,000 took the deal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html

Mitt is very likely among them, which is why he's being so evasive. He can't afford to cop to that, which is why we'll never see his tax returns, ever.

Of course he paid all the taxes demanded by law, but only when the law was breathing down his neck... you're not a crook until you get busted, right? Or until you rat yourself out, which is what Mitt isn't doing...

Yes, I'd say there is a very good chance that this is exactly what Romney is hiding. That's why the Obama campaign said "Okay, 5 years and we won't bother you any more." Next, they'll say, "Okay, how about just 4 years? 3? How about just 2009? What are you hiding in 2009, the year tax evaders got an amnesty?" They'll let it drip out over weeks rather than dump it all at once, though.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

In my opinion Romney is sunk unless he can somehow release a sufficient number of tax returns that show him absolved of any wrong doing or activity that would be viewed as morally reprehensible.

If he lets this linger until Election Day the damage will be fatal. GOP operatives all know this which is why they are demanding he release his returns ASAP. I find it baffling that the GOP could let Romney get this far knowing full well about Romney's returns. Perhaps they knew all along this election was never up for grabs and are biding their time until 2016. That seems pretty farfetched to me.

The GOP has never struck me as an unorganized party. To see them make this many missteps tells me they are having serious leadership problems within the party. On the other hand, I've never seen the Democrats execute quite so well. Obama's campaign team has laid the groundwork for how national elections will be won by the Democrats for years to come.

The GOP has to realign themselves to become relevant again in national politics. This will mean a fracturing/split of their party is coming. Short term they will lose all hope of the presidency, but long term it's what they need to do to remain a viable national party. They must shed their racist, white, militant image....and fast.

 

[BladeVenom]

I don't doubt it in the least. Pisses me off that birthers are so stupid they still bring up this BS.

They are not nearly as stupid as people asking for Romney's tax returns.

 

[berzerker60]

They are not nearly as stupid as people asking for Romney's tax returns.

I know you are but what am I?

 

[cybrsage]

Reference the Factcheck piece linked above, where the raised seal is clearly visible. It puts the lie to Cybr's bullshit.

I'm going to give all of you a 'heads-up' on passports.

Only people born in Texas and California are required to provide long-form versions of their birth certificates to receive a passport. A very recently enacted regulation also requires that the parent or parents of an applicant be listed on the birth certificate.

President Obama could have, at any time, submitted an abstract from the state or even territory of Hawaii and still have received his passport. He would not have needed special treatment to do so.

And FYI, not all embossed seals or intaglio printings are going to show up on a digital scan. Sometimes they are so faint you can barely feel them when you run a finger over them. That doesn't mean they aren't there.

Ah, cool, you cannot see it, but if they say they felt it then it is there. However, there is NO signature on that birth certificate. A signature is required by federal law. I posted it three times.

 

[cybrsage]

Your example is totally illogical. You're confusing the truth value of the claim "I was told xyz by someone at Bain" with the truth value of xyz.

You may well have "heard from someone on the Internet" that I eat babies. But that doesn't make the statement "shira eats babies" true.

It has just as much support as Reid's statement, which is none. If you say no support means it is true, then my statement is true as well. You really have no choice in this, unless you admit Reid's statement is untrue without proof.

Reid could easily be protecting a source who would get in serious trouble and lose his job at Bain if his identity were revealed. So it's completely believable that Reid could hear something highly controversial, report it, yet not reveal his source. News reporters do that kind of thing all the time.

I am simply protecting my source as well. See, works just as well here too.

It's easy to prove that YOU are a liar, since you've been caught in lies by the Mods, right here on ATPN. But you're claiming that Reid is a liar. Where's you proof?

Reid is a career politician, he is a known liar. It is easy to prove.

However, I do not need proof according to your own logic. I simply have to say that someone in DC told me Reid is lying. Then say I am protecting the person by not releasing his name. This person also also told me that you and Reid were seen eating babies together. You must accept this must be the truth, according to your own logic. Or you can simply admit your logic is full of failure.

Do you see how bad your logic is yet? You need a new line of reasoning...maybe something like "I am a partisan shill and blindly accept anything the dems say as 100% truthful provided it is something bad about a rep". I cannot argue against that line of reasoning. But the line of "Reid is telling the truth and does not need to support his accusation but if anyone else does it then they are lying and need to support their accusation" is a bad line of reasoning.

 

[berzerker60]

No one cares, Obama is President of the United States and was born in Hawaii, this whole birther rehashing is entirely pointless and stupid. It has nothing to do with Romney's taxes.

 

[cybrsage]

They are not nearly as stupid as people asking for Romney's tax returns.

I think they are about the same level of stupid.

 

[cybrsage]

No one cares, Obama is President of the United States and was born in Hawaii, this whole birther rehashing is entirely pointless and stupid. It has nothing to do with Romney's taxes.

He did not even need to show a birth certificate to prove he is a natural born US citizen...he just has to prove his mom gave birth to him and that she was a US citizen. Since she was born on a US Military Base inside the US, she was definately a US citizen. No one is claiming his mom is not his mom, so it is a done deal. He gained his citizenship genetically.

The only thing that links returners and birthers are the amount of idiocy required in their reasons why they act like they do. Both are on the loonie fringe and should be laughed at by regular folk.

 

[cybrsage]

It is apparent the going loonie returner reason people are now mindlessly repeating is the "he has to be hiding something and neither the IRS nor the Secret Service could find it, but I will because I am much better at their jobs than they are" line of reasoning.

Keep it up!

 

[berzerker60]

The IRS and Secret Service don't give a shit about 'politically bad' as long as it's not illegal. Citizens deciding on the next president do. It's not the IRS or SS's jobs to decide who gets to be the next president of the United States, it's ours, so we want the information for our purposes.

Romney's taxes continue to have nothing to do with Barack Obama's paperwork in really any meaningful way.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is apparent the going loonie returner reason people are now mindlessly repeating is the "he has to be hiding something and neither the IRS nor the Secret Service could find it, but I will because I am much better at their jobs than they are" line of reasoning.

Keep it up!

Nice strawman!

If he claimed amnesty for offshore secret squirrel tax accounts in 2009, along with nearly 15,000 other wealthy offshoring tax cheats, then the IRS already knows about it, and we would too, if he released his returns.

 

[cybrsage]

Ah, so you are saying it is actually the "Cause he is following the tax law just like me and I am mad about it" loonie returner line of reasoning. Thanks for clarifying that, I do not want to get it wrong - it is hard to understand what the loonie returners are thinking at any given moment, it is so strange. It is like talking to a birther.

 

[berzerker60]

Ah, so you are saying it is actually the "Cause he is following the tax law just like me and I am mad about it" loonie returner line of reasoning. Thanks for clarifying that, I do not want to get it wrong - it is hard to understand what the loonie returners are thinking at any given moment, it is so strange. It is like talking to a birther.

Correct, he's (almost certainly) following a tax law that's biased in favor of the extremely wealthy like himself, while campaigning for lower taxes for the extremely wealthy like himself and slashing services for those who pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. That makes me mad. If, even further, he had to take advantage of a tax amnesty in 2009 for his offshore holdings, that even further undercuts his campaign, and is information relevant to my decision on whether he's make a good president.

You're free to think him use of the tax amnesty (or whatever) is irrelevant.

 

[cybrsage]

At least you are honest with your loonie returner reason of "Cause he is following the tax law just like me and I am mad about it." Quite loonie to be mad that someone is doing what you do.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, so you are saying it is actually the "Cause he is following the tax law just like me and I am mad about it" loonie returner line of reasoning. Thanks for clarifying that, I do not want to get it wrong - it is hard to understand what the loonie returners are thinking at any given moment, it is so strange. It is like talking to a birther.

Another strawman! I didn't need or benefit from prosecutorial amnesty wrt offshore accounts I hadn't revealed in violation of the law, unlike nearly 15,000 offshoring fat cats, Mitt likely among them.

For them it was like coming to Jesus- Confess your sins, put your money in the plate, after which all sins are forgiven, and it's just between you & the Lord.

None of this will be going away, either, so get used to it. There is no remedy for it other than actual tax records, which we'll likely only see the day that Hell freezes over. If the perceived consequences of releasing those returns weren't greater than the consequences of withholding them, they would have been released long ago. Mitt isn't stupid- he's a weasel, one of the best. That's obvious even to people who'll vote for him just because there's an (R) next to his name on the ballot.

As we've seen, there is no possible remedy for Birtherism.

 

[tweaker2]

Birthers; can't live with'um, can't laugh without'um.

 

[Balt]

Ah, cool, you cannot see it, but if they say they felt it then it is there. However, there is NO signature on that birth certificate. A signature is required by federal law. I posted it three times.

The 'signature' in this case is the wet seal/stamp on the back of the birth certificate. If you look at the front of the digital scan, you can even see the date of issuance that has bled or been imprinted through the paper. This is very common, in many states.

Edit: And the previously linked factcheck.org site also shows the signature on the back. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I see cybrtroll finally came out of the closet and admitted his birtherism.....not surprised.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Back on topic, why should we trust Romney on his taxes now, when he is already on record that he lied on his tax returns ~10 years ago?

Link

Link

So he had to publicly admit he lied and had to retroactively revise his returns 3 years later.

So why would anyone believe him now about his taxes? He's already been proven to have lied about them before.