So what the hell will all these folks do if it comes out that Reid was accurate? Now that will be an epic thread indeed.

Democrats, dude. She's a Democrat...

Romney made his money before politics.

Obama made his money from politics.

cabbyman: Obama made his money from politics.

If by "politics" you mean "two books about his life before politics"

Paul Baumer: So what the hell will all these folks do if it comes out that Reid was accurate? Now that will be an epic thread indeed.

But pinochios! Four of them! Don't you know what that means?

spongeboob: cabbyman: Romney made his money before politics.

Obama made his money from politics.

citation?

You're at "9 Pinocchios" for falsely questioning his assertion.

StopLurkListen: spongeboob: cabbyman: Romney made his money before politics.

Obama made his money from politics.

citation?

You're at "9 Pinocchios" for falsely questioning his assertion.

I rate your statement "Shorts Afire"

Notliar, notliar, pants on fire!

What Reid did was pretty ballsy, unless he is the world's best poker player or he has the nuts and knows it. It was also way over the top, across the line, and beyond the pale. Republicanish, if you will. But various "fact-checking" organizations are rating it a lie, which might very well be true, but without a release of the returns, we have no data, just speculation. Just because the decorum is lacking, doesn't mean you know whether or not its a not true. You don't.

If only there was a way to clear this up. Something simple. Routine.

cabbyman: Romney made his money before politics birth.

Obama made his money from politics.

FTFY

StopLurkListen: spongeboob: cabbyman: Romney made his money before politics.

Obama made his money from politics.

citation?

You're at "9 Pinocchios" for falsely questioning his assertion.

That's "1.0 microroves" when converted to Metric.

Makh: Are the interns there too young to understand what the reference to "Pants on fire" means?

This commercial must confuse the hell out of them.



No mas pantalones

cameroncrazy1984: StopLurkListen: spongeboob: cabbyman: Romney made his money before politics.

Obama made his money from politics.

citation?

You're at "9 Pinocchios" for falsely questioning his assertion.

I rate your statement "Shorts Afire"

I was going to go with Bloomers Smoldering, but that works.

Meh, I really like Matt Yglesias. He's a good writer.

PITA meter sucked too. Communists everywhere.

bartink: But various "fact-checking" organizations are rating it a lie, which might very well be true, but without a release of the returns, we have no data, just speculation. Just because the decorum is lacking, doesn't mean you know whether or not its a not true.

Unless he is lying about someone telling him about the taxes even if he releases the returns and he did pay income taxes for those 10 years he still isn't lying.

Paul Baumer: So what the hell will all these folks do if it comes out that Reid was accurate? Now that will be an epic thread indeed.

I'd be floored, but laugh my ass off.

Satanic_Hamster: There's a difference between "no proof" and "lied."

Eh, it's also a pretty insane claim to make. Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

Sabyen91: bartink: But various "fact-checking" organizations are rating it a lie, which might very well be true, but without a release of the returns, we have no data, just speculation. Just because the decorum is lacking, doesn't mean you know whether or not its a not true.

Unless he is lying about someone telling him about the taxes even if he releases the returns and he did pay income taxes for those 10 years he still isn't lying.

Sorry about the switching of pronouns. That must be a confusing sentence.

Yet more liberal temper tantrums when organizations they control call Democrats out on their BS.

sprawl15: Eh, it's also a pretty insane claim to make. Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

That's why I figure Reid is correct on this. Think about it. Reid isn't Bachmann. He doesn't say stuff like this unless he really means it.

randomjsa: Yet more liberal temper tantrums when organizations they control call Democrats out on their BS.

Can you please point out the BS? Politifact itself points out that Reid didn't lie.

Politifact is horrible. It spins and skews and bends like any politician.


Those fact checking websites should be limited. The rule should be if what some politician said is ambiguous, they should just avoid the statement or subject completely.

Everyone knows that a pol will craft his statement and pick his words to easily wiggle out of later.

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: Eh, it's also a pretty insane claim to make. Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

That's why I figure Reid is correct on this. Think about it. Reid isn't Bachmann. He doesn't say stuff like this unless he really means it.

I think it's much more a case where the downside of being wrong grossly overweighs the upside. If Romney released the returns and proved Reid wrong by showing that he paid about five bucks a year on average, nobody would care that Reid is technically wrong. Same if there were donations or investments into things that would absolutely destroy his cred in the GOP, like donating millions to Planned Parenthood. Or possibly Reid is pretty much solidly wrong, but Romney's only paying 5% in taxes and the returns would let people nationally examine how the rules don't apply to the rich. That alone could do huge amounts to change the political landscape, and Reid could see that as worth the risk.

There's a lot of different angles I can see in this game.

randomjsa: Yet more liberal temper tantrums when organizations they control call Democrats out on their BS.

I don't see any liberals throwing tantrums. I do see a lot of right wingers trying to put out a wildfire that continues to spread.

Did Romney pay 2% in 2003? 3.5% in '05? Zero maybe in 2009 after the big economic meltdown? Used those 'carryover losses' to eliminate any federal tax obligation? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Use the amnesty on his Swiss account? Hmm...

All quite legal. However, how would that sell in TeaPartyland?

Do you know, Random Jackass from the internet?

sprawl15: Paul Baumer: So what the hell will all these folks do if it comes out that Reid was accurate? Now that will be an epic thread indeed.

I'd be floored, but laugh my ass off.

Satanic_Hamster: There's a difference between "no proof" and "lied."

Eh, it's also a pretty insane claim to make. Paying very little in taxes, I could see. Zero? No, I really can't see that as a practical possibility. I'm in the camp of people who think it's more than zero, but toxic regardless.

I recall the quote as 'didn't pay income taxes' and Romneys response as 'paid lots of taxes'.

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Paul Baumer: So what the hell will all these folks do if it comes out that Reid was accurate? Now that will be an epic thread indeed.

Reid will still be a terrible, terrible person. Reid will still have pushed an unsourced rumor into the national conversation for cheap points. Reid will still be unfit to serve for a number of reasons unrelated to this incident. Reid will still be a better choice than chicken-care.

MFAWG: I recall the quote as 'didn't pay income taxes' and Romneys response as 'paid lots of taxes'.

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Romney said a lot of different things against Reid, including a categorical denial. There was a lot of weird hollow bluster, but he did come right out and say, ""Harry's going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong, [...] It's untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It's wrong."

salvador.hardin: Reid will still be unfit to serve for a number of reasons unrelated to this incident.

Such as?

Also, "anonymously sourced" is not the same thing as "unsourced," as any journalism major will tell you.

Can't support Reid's behavior (don't claim what you can't prove) but that doesn't stop me from enjoying Romney's wild flailing over it.

randomjsa: Yet more liberal temper tantrums when organizations they control call Democrats out on their BS.

Wow. You are trying waaaay too hard. Your feeble troll is collapsing in on itself to the point of making you look even more intellectually dishonest than usual.

Get help.

spongeboob: randomjsa: Yet more liberal temper tantrums when organizations they control call Democrats out on their BS.

Well if they are calling Democrats out on their BS the Democrats must allow alternative POVs, what monsters. Or maybe the Democrats don't run everything but Fox News, and what ever websites seem to get so many green lights on Fark. Either way it must be a pain to be butthurt all

You, sir, are egregiously correct in your statement and I will politely interrupt you to shout such sentiment while pointing accusingly and approvingly.


the time.

sprawl15: Romney said a lot of different things against Reid, including a categorical denial. There was a lot of weird hollow bluster, but he did come right out and say, ""Harry's going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong, [...] It's untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It's wrong."

Interesting that he can say that and then continue to refuse to release the information.

My secret hope is that Reid knows for sure that Romney actually did pay no taxes but for only 9 years, not 10. I'm waiting for Romney to say "I did not pay no taxes for 10 years".

I have noticed that Romney very carefully parses his words about taxes, saying things like "I've paid a lot of taxes" without saying "Federal Income" ever. His parsing is getting practically lawyer-ey, which is quite revealing.