His senate accomplishments were sub-par. That doesn’t mean that he is a mediocre individual. He’s far from it. Any half-way fair look at his resume shows that. It’s impressive. Especially for a guy from Kenya. 
It appears that the ‘debate’ has shifted somewhat.
I do not remember Mr. Obama’s alleged connection with terrorists being brought into this prior to a feeble attempt at a tu quoque attack by a certain partisan.
The Romney campaign can easily put this monster to bed.
The overbearing question now is why they have chosen to allow it to continue by not releasing the tax returns.
Not what Mr. Reid did.
Not what Mr. Obama did.
What Mr. Romney has chosen not to do.
So maybe you missed this, but if you wouldn’t mid, I’ll ask again:
So maybe you missed this, Magellan, but if you wouldn’t mid, I’ll ask again:
How much more of a scolding do you want?
Sub-par, eh? In order to avoid this, I’ll give you the last word. 
Nicely done.
I want to see your condemnation of his tactic before our little exchange in which you boxed yourself into a corner and had to condemn him to save credibility.
Once again, I’ll wait.
Before? Okay.
That’s from post #456. You accused me of defending him and asked for an example of me condemning him in #461. and subsequently.
[QUOTE=Truman Burbank]
“He’s squeaky clean.” Magellan, I have to admit to doubts about this. I think there is at least a fair possibility that he participated in the ‘amnesty’ for Swiss bank account holders, for example. I think if he were truly “squeaky clean”, he’d release the returns, just as he has demanded from opponents in prior electoral contests, and has become customary in recent Presidential contests.
I can only figure he’s either:
- not squeaky clean, or
- A huge hypocrite.
Can you legitimately offer another reasonable, better interpretation?
[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I am wrong, but even if he did participate in the amnesty, how does that detract from his squeaky cleanness? That was legal, wasn’t it? Why would it be viewed unlike taking a busniss deduction or utilizing one of the loophole available to rich guys.?
The interpretation I offer is that he;s taking the intelligent route. He knows that no matter what is in the returns, and let’s assume for a second that everything is perfectly kosher, he knows that from now until November he will be doing nothing than fielding questions on elements of the return and being asked why he isn’t responding to more Harry Reid-type accusations. That will detract from his campaign message, which id precisely the purpose of the attack.
Hope that helps.
Wrong. Before the subject come up within this thread. Go back another page or two. Or two another thread. Otherwise, your claim stretches the imagination. From here to Pluto. As in, it just doesn’t ring true. Almost as bad as your lcaim that you haven’t condemned Harry Reid for his tactic because he doesn’t read the SDMB.
I must say, THAT is a Hall of Famer.
You asked for a condemnation, I quoted a condemnation. You asked for one “before our little exchange” and I gave you that too. Now what, you want one before the subject ever came up?
He may well be taking the intelligent route. You and I will have to differ on the definition of ‘squeaky clean’, I see that as not just the equivalent of “strictly legal”. For example, I could run on a platform of family values, and spend $2K a week in a local strip club, entirely legally. But it wouldn’t likely pass a sniff test with the electorate.
In any event, does your interpretation** not **still leave him a hypocrite?
Perhaps you’re unclear on what the word amnesty means. It means he was engaging in illegal acts and took a pardon in exchange for admitting it. Engaging in illegal acts is not legal, no. It’s the opposite of being “squeaky clean.”
For the zillionth time, his tax returns matter because his answer for fixing the economy is to lower taxes for the “overburdened” wealthy, and at the same time lower the deficit (which means sticking it to the middle class and the poor and cutting the safety net). His taxes probably show he’s paid in the single digits, took all kinds of deductions and shelters, and maybe took advantage of
the Swiss account amnesty. He’s the ultimate hypocrite, and his message becomes totally self serving.
This is unnecessarily personal (and sound horrendous). Please rein it in.
This thread is about Romney’s tax returns, not an “Obama sucks vs. Romney sucks” free-for-all. I understand where other accusations may be relevant by comparison, but if there’s no discussion of the original subject, I’ll close the thread.
Okey-dokey. But you DO realize the source of all the “Obama sucks” diversions here?
LOL. Explain to me how someone can have a squeaky clean image when they admit to committing a crime in exchange for immunity? Or do you not know what the word “amnesty” means?
Put another way: is there a downside to accepting amnesty for something?
Answer: Amnesty is completely positive–it exonerates you from having done something illegal, in exchange for your admission that you did that illegal thing. It does look bad, however, to having admitted doing something illegal, so if you’re running for President you may want to think about how you’re going to explain doing something illegal. Unless you’re Mitt Romney, in which case you can accept the amnesty AND deny ever doing anything illegal.
Until you’re caught. Then you can piss in Obama’s Cheerios and change the subject to your urinary incontinence and your right to have that problem.
Oddly enough, there are a couple of folks who think it’s actually about Harry Reid’s ethics. Oh, if only Romney had a way to disprove Reid, and prove he’s a poopyhead, *that *would show all those damn liberals … if only he had a way …
This is, or should be, pretty small potatos politics-wise. If Romney can’t handle even this, how’s he going to handle a *real *problem?