I will take the fact that McCain, who has seen Romney’s tax returns, is NOT defending him on the grounds suggested as highly significant.
It’d take him five seconds to clarify. Yet he hasn’t said a word.
So, if he followed the law and took the deductions he was entitled to, that would be a bad thing in your book, huh? Sigh.
At least you’re back on your usual track. And the world is back on its axis.
I happened to be listening to Glenn Beck’s program yesterday, where the OP got the idea for this. He even brought up the fact how the left tried to discredit and sully his name with the " Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in '91". He goes on a whole long diatribe about it, completely oblivious to the point of why people used that meme against him in the first place.
Not as a taxpayer, of course not. As an applicant for the job of *administering *said tax code, certainly.
Have you ever been diagnosed with a cognitive deficit? Or even evaluated for one? It might be a good idea.
Why not publicly? It’s a public political matter. Unless perhaps McCain wants Romney to lose, which may be possible.
Don’t know. Maybe McCain is laughing to himself knowing that he can make the announcement at any time. “Should I do it today? Nah, I’ll let the idiot Reid champion this for another couple of months and make him look like an even bigger fool. The bigger he makes the issue, the better, as it utilizes their energy. I’ll wait till closer till the election, when the bitch-slap I give Reid will have the greatest effect.”
I gotta admit, I find this immensely amusing considering your defense of Bachmann’s letter about Abedin. The exact scenario you are proposing to clear Romney’s name actually occurred with McCain standing up on the floor to defend Abedin. And yet you can still defend Bachmann’s actions. I don’t know why you would expect others to take McCain seriously when you clearly don’t.
But, if he gets evaluated for it, and it turns out he has it, how will the information benefit him?
Do they give him the information with extra intensity, to overcome the deficit?
So, now I am confused.
Is it Harry Reid or Mitt Romney that is a pederast?
And how does Glenn Beck factor into the equation?
McCain wasn’t personally vouching for her. He was claiming that she had already been cleared. Which is factually correct (I assume). Where he is wrong is to say that it is not Bachman’s place to point out concerns she and her committee members might have. Especially with the balance of of power shifting in Egypt and the MB having more than they’ve had.
Now, what I find amusing, is that while some (you?) point to McCain’s comments on the Abedin issue and embrace his words, there seems to be a reluctance to do that should he do what I fantasized about.
And there’s more amusement. People jump on Bachman for accusing Abedin of this or that, when she never accused her of a single thing. Really, read the letter. But then we have Reid making direct and repeated accusations that Romney “paid no taxes for 10 years”, based on…“well, some guy mentioned it to me, but I’m not going to say who.” So the Republican makes no accusations and gets attacked for making them, while the Democrat makes direct and repeated unsubstantiated accusations and from the left side we see…what? Well, it ranges from mere silence to outright Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy glee.
Now, that is amusing.
You’re complaining about what you fantasize others’ reactions would be if your own fantasy were to somehow come true? 
So you want the less capable man for the job?
I want the one whose interests are with the country, not himself.
How much income tax above what you were required to by law did you pay last year?
What’s puzzling is that you would want someone to not take a deduction he was legally able to. Perhaps you eschew certain deductions, but I think it’s fair to say that most Americans don’t. What’s also puzzling* is that you didn’t understand that I was responding to someone who claimed he would rather Romney illegally evade taxes to pay zero than legally take enough deductions to pay zero. Care to comment on the actual issue at hand?
*Not really, since you do this sort of thing all the time.
Do you really think Harry Reid is dumb enough to make an accusation against Mitt Romney that he knows to be untrue and that can easily be disproved?
He made it because he knows that Romney is never, ever gonna release those returns.
No, what’s puzzling is how you could think that’s what I said. :rolleyes:
Does your inability to recognize a higher good for society that can be in conflict with some individual goods really extend that far? Is your problem with comprehension of how a society functions actually deeper than a simple disinclination to engage in it, the “sort of thing you do all the time”? Maybe so. Maybe you really are that sociopathic, disguising it under the name of libertarianism.
Can you really not comprehend that responsibility for setting the rules might not best be entrusted to someone whose personal interests are antithetical to societal interests? Or can you really not comprehend that there are such things as societal interests at all?
I’ll ask again: How much income tax above what you were required to by law did you pay last year?
I’m not sure what’s funnier, your weird characterization of how pretty much everyone approaches their taxes or your misunderstanding of which branch of government determines the tax code. But then again, I do you remember you having the same concerns about Kerry in '04, whose wife has even more money than Romney does.
If you do remember that, you’re in even worse psychological shape than I thought. 'Cause it didn’t happen.
Thanks to both you and **maggie **for demonstrating what is, at the most charitable, a middle-school-student’s solipsism. At your ages, however, it is unlikely that either of you will ever be able to recognize anything more important than yourselves, much less recognize that individual and social interests are not necessarily congruent.
mags, at least your act is faintly amusing at times, such as in your last couple of posts where you demonstrate your own inability to grasp the question. **John’**s act is just sad.