It it then fair to assume that "your" candidate is not using legal loopholes or sheltering income with legal and financial moves suggested by his tax advisers, retirement planners, brokers and lawyers? That he just ponies up all he cash that his income bracket suggests and doesn't take any deductions...that he, in fact, he writes extra checks to the government every year to support the programs that he supports rather than placing the burden for those programs on the people he's supposed to represent?
I think it's safe assume that Obama isn't using the loopholes that Romney is, because if he were every right-wad on the planet would be having a conniption because the magic **** is hiding his money so he doesn't have to pay taxes - think about it.
So saying that The President is hiding something is simply ridiculous.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
It it then fair to assume that "your" candidate is not using legal loopholes or sheltering income with legal and financial moves suggested by his tax advisers, retirement planners, brokers and lawyers?
Well if you want to know, that would be available in the tax records he released.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Anyway, I got to buy a gun and some more bullets for the coming apocalypse. I was thinking deer slugs for zombies. What do you guys think?
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
I am surprised that The Dems did not make use of his "Would you want a President who did not take all legal deductions?" clip after we learned that he did not take certain deductions in order not to fall below a 10% effective rate.
Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
I think it's safe assume that Obama isn't using the loopholes that Romney is, because if he were every right-wad on the planet would be having a conniption because the magic **** is hiding his money so he doesn't have to pay taxes - think about it.
Of course he isn't using the same loopholes, since he is not involved in the same business ventures as Romney.
So do you think Mitt pays more or less than he should? And if you think less, then compare it to your own personal effective tax rate. The average personal effective tax rate in the U.S. is ~11%. Mitt's was ~15% last year.
Of course he isn't using the same loopholes, since he is not involved in the same business ventures as Romney.
So do you think Mitt pays more or less than he should? And if you think less, then compare it to your own personal effective tax rate. The average personal effective tax rate in the U.S. is ~11%. Mitt's was ~15% last year.
Anyway, I got to buy a gun and some more bullets for the coming apocalypse. I was thinking deer slugs for zombies. What do you guys think?
Assuming you're using a pump action shotgun, use low-recoil slugs or buckshot. Faster follow-up shots. But only use a shotgun if you need to. They're only good with slugs to 150 yds. max, but zombies within a 1 mile radius can hear them.
Better to use an AR if you can get one. The safe zone:alert zombies zone ratio is better. Better yet to get one with a supressor. Oh, wait, you live in California....
(when prepared properly, most places over bread and over fry).
Is there something called a Lodge Zombie when elections are nigh?
When I have had them they tasted like the worst liver ever.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Of course, out depends on if we get slow Romero zombies or running, Dawn of the dead zombies.
Exactly. Also, a .22 Rimfire can't be relied on to penetrate the skull and scramble the brains reliable. A better choice is a centerfire rifle or pistol, 9mm/.38 Special minimum in handgun, .22 Hornet in rifle.
Dawn of the Dead/28 Days later zombies require more common anti-personnel rounds because they're not really dead, but infected, and can be taken down with body shots.
On the other hand, the shotgun and centerfire rounds are good at breaking hip bones, reducing shamblers to crawlers and giving you more time. It's all about options...
What I've never understood is how zombies can bite or do any body damage once they've ripened a bit. I mean shouldn't their teeth just fall out, and their arms and fingers break off?
Well tonight I am placing clamores in my front yard. I am not taking any chances that kid is not wearing a costume.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
What I've never understood is how zombies can bite or do any body damage once they've ripened a bit. I mean shouldn't their teeth just fall out, and their arms and fingers break off?
I think it's safe assume that Obama isn't using the loopholes that Romney is, because if he were every right-wad on the planet would be having a conniption because the magic **** is hiding his money so he doesn't have to pay taxes - think about it.
Can you guys, just once, have a conversation without throwing in derogatory terminology? I don't care, but I don't think you can.....
The folks on the right are only going to care if A)He's doing things they aren't doing, or He's doing things he's busting his opposition for, or C) they think they can get mileage out of it because they are a bunch of fibbing dirtballs...just like all the politicians who will do anything, any time, to gain advantage...
"Just because I criticize your argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your position."
Well if you want to know, that would be available in the tax records he released.
I could care less - I've got a tendency to judge people by their performance...and with a couple of exceptions, Obama's simply not that bad.
But people who are calling for a certain level of performance/disclosure/transparency from "the other guy's" candidate better make darned sure that their candidate passes the same smell test before they start pounding the drums.....
"Just because I criticize your argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your position."
Can you guys, just once, have a conversation without throwing in derogatory terminology? I don't care, but I don't think you can.....
I'm sorry you don't like how things are said here. If you don't like how or are offended by the way "we" say things, you are not obligated to read the posts here. I'm sure there are plenty of forums that would suit you.
But people who are calling for a certain level of performance/disclosure/transparency from "the other guy's" candidate better make darned sure that their candidate passes the same smell test before they start pounding the drums.....
I'm not interested in Romney's college transcripts, his birth certificate or his library card. I am interested in his tax returns. For Christ sake his daddy even showed, I think, 12 years of returns. Romney is hiding his tax returns because he knows people will see him for the POS exploitative pirate that he is. Obama leads Romney by over 22 points in Romney's home state of Mass. This is where people KNOW Romney.
"When the goin gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
I'm sorry you don't like how things are said here. If you don't like how or are offended by the way "we" say things, you are not obligated to read the posts here. I'm sure there are plenty of forums that would suit you.
Mike.....you must have missed the "I don't care part"...I'm simply not emotionally invested in either party's position enough to give a rip. If it makes you feel good, and all "team player-ish", have at it....I just bet you guys can't do it.
Some guy once told me, on another forum, that how I presented what I had to say really turned off a lot of people. I try to remember that advice these days...I'm not always successful, but I try.
"Just because I criticize your argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your position."
I'm not interested in Romney's college transcripts, his birth certificate or his library card. I am interested in his tax returns. For Christ sake his daddy even showed, I think, 12 years of returns. Romney is hiding his tax returns because he knows people will see him for the POS exploitative pirate that he is. Obama leads Romney by over 22 points in Romney's home state of Mass. This is where people KNOW Romney.
Sorry, but that's situational ethics at best.
Full disclosure is only appropriate if it applies to both groups, across the board.
Would you hire an executive without looking at his college transcripts? Only conspiracy theory goofs care about the birther crap, but college records are Germain to the discussion...and it looks just as bad to Obama's opponents that he's hiding things as it does when Romney won't show his tax returns.
If you're going to try to convince people your people are better than theirs, you have to hold them to a higher standard.....
"Just because I criticize your argument doesn't mean that I disagree with your position."
I posted my comment because once again by complaining how things are said and it doesn't suit you. In my opinion, that is akin to trying to change the conversation. People say things, because that is how they feel or what their opinion is. You have a choice, either deal with it and accept this board for what it is, or find another that suits your delicate sensitivities.
Replies
I think it's safe assume that Obama isn't using the loopholes that Romney is, because if he were every right-wad on the planet would be having a conniption because the magic **** is hiding his money so he doesn't have to pay taxes - think about it.
Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.
He showed his tax records. Rommey will not.
So saying that The President is hiding something is simply ridiculous.
Well if you want to know, that would be available in the tax records he released.
Of course he isn't using the same loopholes, since he is not involved in the same business ventures as Romney.
So do you think Mitt pays more or less than he should? And if you think less, then compare it to your own personal effective tax rate. The average personal effective tax rate in the U.S. is ~11%. Mitt's was ~15% last year.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/mitt-romney-taxes-13-percent/1#.UJFdnP5tiUl
Yup, that's what he says, but he's been lying so much, who knows what the truth is.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.
Assuming you're using a pump action shotgun, use low-recoil slugs or buckshot. Faster follow-up shots. But only use a shotgun if you need to. They're only good with slugs to 150 yds. max, but zombies within a 1 mile radius can hear them.
Better to use an AR if you can get one. The safe zone:alert zombies zone ratio is better. Better yet to get one with a supressor. Oh, wait, you live in California....
Here's a good resource.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-famous-zombie-movie-weapons-that-would-get-you-killed/
Rocky Mountain Oysters.......YUM!
(when prepared properly, most places over bread and over fry).
Is there something called a Lodge Zombie when elections are nigh?
No. a .22 rimfire. Quiet, and available.
Of course, out depends on if we get slow Romero zombies or running, Dawn of the dead zombies.
When I have had them they tasted like the worst liver ever.
Dawn of the Dead/28 Days later zombies require more common anti-personnel rounds because they're not really dead, but infected, and can be taken down with body shots.
On the other hand, the shotgun and centerfire rounds are good at breaking hip bones, reducing shamblers to crawlers and giving you more time. It's all about options...
What I've never understood is how zombies can bite or do any body damage once they've ripened a bit. I mean shouldn't their teeth just fall out, and their arms and fingers break off?
Obviously, that kid is a 47%er.
Claymores are more effective. The clams don't have much of a burst.
Did you know: the Claymore was originally a Broadsword used by Scottish Highlanders: the mine was developed by a Scott i believe.
Mike
Can you guys, just once, have a conversation without throwing in derogatory terminology? I don't care, but I don't think you can.....
The folks on the right are only going to care if A)He's doing things they aren't doing, or
Is that the long way of saying "No, he hasn't shown all his records, for everything."?
That's what I thought.
I could care less - I've got a tendency to judge people by their performance...and with a couple of exceptions, Obama's simply not that bad.
But people who are calling for a certain level of performance/disclosure/transparency from "the other guy's" candidate better make darned sure that their candidate passes the same smell test before they start pounding the drums.....
Double ought buck. You don't have to be as good a shot......
I'd rather have More Cesspools...just sayin'
I'm sorry you don't like how things are said here. If you don't like how or are offended by the way "we" say things, you are not obligated to read the posts here. I'm sure there are plenty of forums that would suit you.
Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.
Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.
Mike.....you must have missed the "I don't care part"...I'm simply not emotionally invested in either party's position enough to give a rip. If it makes you feel good, and all "team player-ish", have at it....I just bet you guys can't do it.
Some guy once told me, on another forum, that how I presented what I had to say really turned off a lot of people. I try to remember that advice these days...I'm not always successful, but I try.
Sorry, but that's situational ethics at best.
Full disclosure is only appropriate if it applies to both groups, across the board.
Would you hire an executive without looking at his college transcripts? Only conspiracy theory goofs care about the birther crap, but college records are Germain to the discussion...and it looks just as bad to Obama's opponents that he's hiding things as it does when Romney won't show his tax returns.
If you're going to try to convince people your people are better than theirs, you have to hold them to a higher standard.....
Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.