Will Muslims vote for the ticket with a Crusader on it?

Thanks for the info, "elliot". I suppose you think we should vote for the guy who attacks the President for doing exactly what he suggested be done when he was Governor of Massachusetts instead?

Blackcat, the muslims will vote for the muslim sympathizer in the white house

Thanks for the info

Noid,

Are you kidding me?

You consider breitbart.com to be informational? lol

Fisty you may want to follow the link at the bottom of the story "Update CNN reviewed the ad". Takes you right to the horses mouth. CNN says it is a bunk ad.

Breitbart speaking from the grave.......:o)

Caesar,

Yep, considering how sympathetic all those drones he sends their way are.

Mitt's choice here is actually pretty important. If, God forbid, he did win one of these guys probably would be President within a year.

The whole brouhaha over Mitt's taxes isn't going to go away. Even if he does successfully stall and doesn't release them before the election, they will eventually come out. Most of you are speculating that it would be too embarrassing for a presidential candidate to make tens of millions per year and pay next to nothing through creative accounting. I think there’s something more nefarious at play.

1) Why did Mitt have a Swiss bank account? He claims it was there for purchasing Swiss francs as he engaged in speculation against the American dollar. That’s patriotic. But since when do you need a Swiss bank account to speculate on foreign currencies? Did any income arising from said speculation make its way into an FBAR report? If so, for how many years? How much?

2) The aforementioned Swiss bank account was closed in 2010. Did Mitt avail himself of the IRS’s 2009 partial tax amnesty on bringing unreported foreign accounts home? If so, it proves he was avoiding paying his taxes. If not, then where did all that money go? Talk about a rock and a hard place for a presidential candidate. It’s flat out proof that you’re a big-time tax cheat.

3) A $100 million IRA? How is that even possible? Even if Mitt contributed the absolute legal maximum $30,000 per year, outside of sprinkling magic Mormon dust on it, there is no way that accumulates into $100 million. Or, did Mitt illegally use a special IRS "safe harbor" rule relating to the taxation of a service in order to stuff far, far, far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value. Now that’s a tax cheat!

4) How did Mitt put together such a low effective tax rate? I want Mitt to stand up and explain to Joe Sixpack why it’s proper that his “carried interest” income is taxed at half the rate of common everyday American workers. Oh, that’s right, managing other people’s money is much harder work than what the common manual laborers do. I’m sure he could explain it to the little people.

5) Exactly how did Mitt put together the huge Romney family trust funds? Did Mitt report and pay gift tax on the funding of these trusts or did he claim unreasonable valuations, which would expose him to serious penalties if all the facts are known?

At this point you might ask, but if any of that were true, why would he even consider running for president? I really don’t know. Maybe someone could ask John Edwards what the thought process is that makes you believe you can encounter presidential candidate scrutiny and still hide your secrets. Nevertheless, the opaque candidate really needs to release his returns and answer the questions. Nixon resigning in disgrace will be nothing compared to a former President in a pin-striped jumpsuit.

And Jon R - the big telltell will be was Mitt really a resident of Mass when he ran for governor? If not, did he vote in that election? Voter Fraud is the achielles heel here, if Mitt really did not live in Mass and was not registered to vote in Mass then he committed the very act the neocons acuse the other side of doing. Plus, it is illegal in most states to vote there if you don't live there and it is illegal in most states to hold an office if you don't live there. That is why it is so important to find out if he really paid taxes and where the filing papers say he was living at that time, he could clear this up easily, but instead he refuses to do so - the ball is in Mitt's court, it is the beginning of the 3rd quarter and most of his players have fouled out.

hey blackcat what do drones have to do with it? you say he kills muslims? what a shock, muslims killing muslims, whoda thunk.

Caesar, when did Christians stop killing Christians? In fact when did Christians stop killing anyone?

and what does that have to do with what you said? you mentioned muslims and crusades so lets stick to that or are you saying Romney is going to launch a crusade? Wait mormons had nothing to do with the crusades.

elliot-3020456

People who lose their jobs, usually lose their health insurance. People without health insurance often don't go to the doctor's when they have symptoms, and they forgo tests. Mitt Romney and the Republicans in general, seem to think healthcare, like cable TV, is something the uninsured should just "do without." Mitt Romney's company absolutely closed some companies and laid off workers, which resulted in their losing health insurance. Most Americans understand the connection.

Caesar, I am sure the Muslims that the President sympathizes with are the vast majority of peace loving Muslims. Apparently you have boxed most if not all Muslims into the terrorist camp.

@Jon -- Instead of putting together a list of questions that can be answered with one or two answers -- because it's in the tax code and I rely on tax attorneys and CPAs -- you might want to trying writing more software. Mr. Ridgeway does CHE know you are doing this?

@Union -- That's rich and too laughable. The left calling for ID.

@Amy -- yes lay offs do occur a fact of life.

Fiesty,

None of what you stated makes any sense, good try though. Many people feel like they are loosing there freedoms under this radical leftist president.

nope not at all blackcat, you see the 'terrorist' muslims in the last few decades have perverted the religion and giving the 'vast majority of good ones' a bad name. What do christians have to do with it again?

People who lose their jobs, usually lose their health insurance. People without health insurance often don't go to the doctor's when they have symptoms, and they forgo tests. Mitt Romney and the Republicans in general, seem to think healthcare, like cable TV, is something the uninsured should just "do without." Mitt Romney's company absolutely closed some companies and laid off workers, which resulted in their losing health insurance. Most Americans understand the connection.

Here are the facts of the case

According to Mr. Soptic, his wife received her primary insurance through her employer – a local thrift store called Savers – and retained it even after his layoff. Soptic's policy through GST Steel was her secondary coverage.

In 2002, Mitt Romney formally left Bain. Sometime in 2002 or 2003, Mr. Soptic says his wife injured her rotator cuff and was forced to leave her job. As a result she lost her health insurance coverage and Mr. Soptic's new job as a janitor did not provide coverage for his spouse.

The Romney campaign should run this ad on loop to show how low this Administration will go to be re-elected. I am glad that the people who support the President are defending this ad. Keep it up. If you think this is a winner go with it, embrace it, keep defending it.

Alan and Elliot,

Thanks for the info. It is pretty bad when "tingle up my leg" Wolf is calling BS on an attack add, then you know the claim is outrageous.

Alan you almost seem surprised the fringe left support that.

Alan -

You seem to be more stridently anti-Obama than you used to be. I was accustomed to you having a more reasoned approach to the issues. What has changed?

Although I have not personally seen the ad, based off what I have read I would not support it. I do fail to see how that is a damning indictment of President Obama, since it is a Super PAC ad supposedly out of his control.

I don't understand why you feel it is more distasteful and less reprehensible than the many pro-Romney ads that take President Obama's word out of context. I have yet to see a pro-Obama ad that took advantage of Romney's many "out of context" gaffes.

Wake up Now - you don't speak for "most people." If you did you'd know "most people" don't consider the President radical - just the far right.

Who care about a worthless VP pick. Romney, show us your tax returns -- especially 2008-2009 that McCain didn't see!

Jon R-469000 -- I see our point, the VP matters because Romney would be busted for his taxes and have to resign. Nah, since Romney won't win, it still doesn't matter.

Will Muslims vote for the ticket with a Crusader on it?

US Muslim Citizens have a tough choice. Muslims are known for being devout, god-fearing, extremely prudish, and opposed to homosexuals, which should fit nicely with the Republican attitudes - but Republicans have been vocally opposed to opening mosques here, and to immigration from Islamic nations. Teapublican are remarkably intolerant to those who are not Judeo-Christian in general and Muslims in particular, and show an anti-foreigner anti-immigrant bias. That does not make Muslims feel welcome in the GOP.

The Democrats are much more tolerant of diversity in religion and in national origin, much more accepting of immigrants, which swings the door open wide for Muslims. Democrats also support charity and aid to the unfortunate, which also fits well with Muslim theology. Unfortunately, Democratic toleration also extends to people that Muslims do not like, including Atheists, Gays, and other religions, which causes devout Muslims to avoid what they see as a party of sinners.

Devout US Muslims really don't have a political party they feel comfortable in. They'd have to decide on factors other than religion, or choose not to vote at all.

Just think, a ticket with Willard and Eddie Munster?

Just think, a twofer, Herman AND Eddie on the same ticket! lol

Woofie for Secretary of State!

LOL Feisty!

giggles.

I wonder haw many toasters, blenders and bath towels were sent to the 0bama campaign headquarters.

At least Michelle will have a nice selection of household goods when Obama moves back to Chicago in January.

mlkboneundrwear - January 2017!

Obama/Biden 2012

Since we don't really know how the whole thing will turn out (I ignore the polls figuring pollsters only talk to those with time on their hands or those far left or right), I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.

Look at history. Some younger voters don't realize the alleged recovery is an anomaly. There has never been such a period of economic stagnation after a recession except for WW2. The economy always healed itself despite who was in office. The fact that such stagnation is happening right now has to be laid at the feet of Obama. If Romney can make his case, Obama's gone.

If not, and we continue down the same economic path, it will destroy Hillary's chances in 2016. For those of you who happen to like Hil, you should protect her by voting Mr Chicago out of office now.

I wonder how long it took No Joe to turn a segment about Romney's VP candidates into a hate-filled diatribe against President Obama.

mlkboneundrwear-

There has never been such a period of economic stagnation after a recession except for WW2. The economy always healed itself despite who was in office. The fact that such stagnation is happening right now has to be laid at the feet of Obama.

You seem to forget that this was not a normal recession, it was part of a global financial meltdown. The US economy is recovering, albeit slowly, and nowmore than ever our economic health is tied to that of other countries which are worse off than we are. Why do you lay that at the feet of Obama?

The countries that are suffering the worst are those who chose the austerity path favored by Paul Ryan. The countries that have done well (like Germany) have a strong central government and well-regulated financial industries. Most of them also have government-managed healthcare and a robust progressive tax structure.

If we changed direction and took Romney's path, it would lead us back down the same road to financial ruin. The "tax cut and spend, deregulate everything" path that got us into this situation cannot lead us back out.

ROFL - Will the liberals start seeing what they are doing? Yesterday Romney killed a wife of a factory worker... now today Romney started Bain with money seeded from Latino Death Squads... this according to the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The hits just keep rolling on... you liberals are a riot!

Steeler Fan - What you don't seem to understand is this election is all about Obama... and for him to be ejected from the White House, along with his band of merry miscreants, tax evaders and liars.

TNS - It's already been noted this recession was bad, but not as bad as once portrayed.

If that's true, then it's also true Obama's recovery plan is less effective than some will want us to believe.

I have not heard that the recession was "not as bad as once portrayed". Do you have a link to that source?

Everything I have read supported the belief that the recession was worse than originally thought.

The recovery from prior economic recessions was usually led by increased consumer spending, especially by the middle class. This spending was first supported by women joining the workforce, then supported by increased borrowing.

The massive job losses in 2008-2009, combined with the decline in middle class wages and the loss of home values make it historically difficult for the middle class to "spend" their way out of this recession.

Corporate profits and CEO salaries are at record highs, and tax rates for the wealthy on both earned income and "capital gains" are at historic lows.

I don't see how Romney's proposals for additional corporate profits or lower tax rates on the wealthy will spur economic recovery.

How embarrassing to have people think you'd want to stand next to him - for anything

I'm dying to know who will be the sacrificial lamb... lol

It doesn't matter who Willard Romney picks, he will lose. The Electoral Vote has Obama way ahead, and the republicans should save their money and focus on 2016.

Maybe Ryan is taking a look at the poll numbers in his home district and figuring that he will have a leg up on 2016 AND avoid a defeat at home by being the VP candidate.

@job1 -- So as I asked before and got crickets:

Great. Thank you for the affirmation that his calculations are statistical in nature which leaves out the our side - your side way of thinking.

So, please let's start a discussion about what an Obama second term will look like if Congress (both houses) are controlled by Republicans. Mr. Silver's calculations -- at least the latest I could find -- has the House remaining in Republican control and the Senate moving Republican by 50-49 with one I. If you through in that mix Ds like Manchin of WV, that's not looking too good for Reid, Obama and company. Yeah I know Mr. Silver's most recent calculations narrowed the gap in the Senate, but still shows that this scenario is very possible and this country will see a record breaking split ticket voting.

Where does the president go from here? Maybe with one house he can pass some "executive" orders but not with neither one democrat. What happens to this country?

Ben-

MAYBE after Obama gets elected to a second term the Republicans will set aside their "one-term" agenda and agree to some compromises on serious issues - tax reform, spending cuts, healthcare, etc.

Either way it turns out, it appears neither party will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and will have to rely on bi-partisan compromise in order to achieve any real results - especially on healthcare.

TN -- Maybe but unlikely since the "one-term" agenda came after the inauguration -- not with the Tea Party which showed up in force in the 2010 election. There is no compromise on tax increases in their platform and no amount of name calling or pressure will change that. The compromise will have to come from the president without tax increases on the table. Can or will he do that??? If not, is the election of one man worth the demise of a whole country. As Spock puts it -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

As to the filibuster, there is no one on here or the left that could condone those after attacking them. You talk about flip flops.

How is it a compromise if one side has to have their way?

If Romney is elected and the Republicans have a majority, why should Democrats in the Senate cooperate if tax increases are not on the table?

I disagree with the filibuster when it is used to block semi-routine political appointments in order to get some unconnected legislation passed. I think it should be reserved for forcing compromise on major legislation like tax reform, entitlement reform, or healthcare. I support either party using it in those situations.

I get my information from reading multiple sources.

If you did the same thing, then you would know that many of the provisions in the "Obamacare" bill were put there in an attempt to compromise with the Republicans. They asked for specific provisions, then after they were included they still refused to sign. (the initial Bush tax cuts were passed with the same reconciliation tactic, by the way).

Democrats rarely had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate due to Kennedy's illness.

President Obama attempted to compromise "early and often" when he was elected - have you forgotten about the "grand compromise" that Boehner walked away from?

President Obama and the Democrats have shown a willingness to compromise on healthcare, tax reform, farm subsidies, highway funding, and entitlement reform but the Republicans refuse.

So yes, I believe the Republicans are at fault. How many Democrats signed a "No Entitlement Reform" pledge to a third party?

The Paulites are totally devoted to their guru, but they're only a tiny minority in the Republican party, and are out of touch with the rest of their party. That explains why Paul didn't win a single primary or caucus. Ron Paul isn't well liked by the rest of the Republican party, and is seen as an eccentric old fool outside of the party.

Some Paulites have been taking over local Republican conventions, getting themselves selected as delegates, and hoping to score a coup at the National Republican Convention. They don't seem to realize how disastrously that would backfire, but top Republican leaders do, and have been taking steps to avoid that.

It's highly unlikely that Romney would select Ron Paul as running-mate, their political philosophies are just too dis-similar, and they really don't like each other. Mitt has too many other possible choices. But maybe if Mitt gets really REALLY desperate and the Paulites threaten to write-in for Paul (or go Libertarian for Johnson), he just might swallow his pride and go for it.

Of course, that will be highly entertaining for the rest of us...

Good governance for 4 more years? Sounds like a just reward for good hearted people...