If that was so self evident, Obama wouldn’t have had to basically call him a douche. The Obama campaign wasn’t just negative, it was very personal. And the “he didn’t pay any taxes” charge, an obvious lie that they never answered for even though it was plain at the time that it was a lie, and even though it was proven to be a lie.
He didn’t.
No, it was just negative.
Who besides Harry Reid made this claim?
The Obama campaign jumped on the bandwagon by making a big issue of his tax returns. It’s like the Swift Boat thing, others make the dumb charges, but you agree with just enough to get the benefit of the charges without having to take responsibility for them.
Cite. Again, you must cite all your claims because your track record is so bad. Further, asking about tax returns (if you have a cite that shows the Obama campaign did this) is not the same as claiming someone paid no taxes.
Making a big issue of it is when the accusation is out there.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-campaign-needles-romney-on-tax-returns-136384.html
This is a case where you demonstrate an extremely short memory. Must be an internet generation thing: knowledge doesn’t exist in memory, only online.
No, but thank you for citing a claim, finally.
No, because I was well aware that Obama repeatedly poked Romney about his tax return. But Obama’s campaign did not say Romney paid no taxes.
I asked you for cites because that’s how it is, now – when adaher makes a factual claim, it must be cited, or it can be dismissed.
Wait – you started this whole thing when you said – or at very least implied – that Obama was accusing Romney of “the “he didn’t pay any taxes” charge”. Those were your words, in case you didn’t remember.
Then you cite Obama’s campaign pushing Romney for fuller disclosure, which isn’t the same as saying that Romney didn’t pay any taxes. If your memory was better, you’d recall that it was Harry Reid that was spreading a rumor that Romney paid no taxes. Cite.
The lessons here are:
- Your recollection of events continues to be notoriously unreliable,
- It is very common to ask for cites on this message board,
- Accusing others of having a short memory when your own version of events had errors, and then you produce cites demonstrating a different claim than what you originally made, is absolutely a “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” moment.
adaher, now that you’ve latched onto some nonsense about whether or not Obama accused Romney of paying taxes, are you no longer following up on:
and
Because this is very much starting to feeling some odd variant of a Gish Gallop: stick to one subject long enough to get completely proven wrong, but then quickly move on to something else before actually having to acknowledge your error.
No, Obama wasn’t the one who started the bandwagon asking for Mitt Romney’s tax returns. You know who did start that bandwagon? George Romney.
And you’re correct that, strictly speaking, it isn’t true that Romney paid no taxes. But when the actual amount of taxes he paid was less than one percent, saying that he paid none is a decent-enough approximation.
Not even you believe that.
Not sure where you get that from. Perhaps you’re referring to his wealth, which isn’t taxable anyway?
IIRC, the most reputable sources, which Romney never contested, put his taxes at 0.3% of his income. All legal, of course, since for some reason we’ve decided that unearned income shouldn’t be taxed.
Cite.
[ul][li]You don’t recall correctly[/li][li]Your sources are apparently not reputable[/li][li]Romney did contest the claim (and showed it to be false)[/li][li]His tax rate was at least 13%, not 0.3% [/li][li]Unearned income is taxed[/li][li]Romney 's tax rate was what it was because he voluntarily claimed fewer deductions than he was entitled to.[/ul]So at least one clause of your post was correct - Romney scrupulously obeyed the law. Every other word of it - not so much.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll take that as a no, you are no longer attempting to defend the comment you made about the Obama campaign intentionally suppressing votes. An actual acknowledgement of your error would help your credibility, but I’m not surprised at the approach you’re actually taking.
Here’s another ad from a group of men that will really appeal to women!!
Seriously, are GOP operatives hiring Borat to write their ads meant to appeal to women?
[quote=“Shodan, post:233, topic:699270”]
[li]Romney 's tax rate was what it was because he voluntarily claimed fewer deductions than he was entitled to.[/list][/li][/QUOTE]
You can bet your sweet ass that the day after the election, Romney filed a 1040X to amend his return and claim the deductions that he passed on in order to not look like the freeloader that he is.
I think you’re on to something. Aside from the “Say Yes To a Republican” thing, they’re also running a “Republicans are people, too” ad campaign, to show their diversity. Thing is - all the images in the ads are just stock photos. They couldn’t even find six diverse people who would agree to be in their campaign so they just used the photos that came with the picture frames.
And now the College Republican National Committee tries to one up AFSP with Say Yes To Rick Scott.
Holy crap. There may be 50 of these:
Say Yes To Tom Corbett.
There’s at least half a dozen. They must be parodies.