"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,''
I have always said Affirmative Action must evolve. It is still sorely needed, however it is no longer a color thing. Disadvantaged kids come in all flavors. Their individual circumstances must be measured and protected by Affirmative Action.
Mr. Romney has already stated under oath that he doesn't prepare nor reads his tax returns. He merely signs them under penalty of perjury. (in case you didn't catch that, Romney effectively admitted to breaking the law).
There's dirt in them there 1040 forms. Since he won't release the forms we can only guess - and gossip about our theories- making his decision a potentially fateful one.
REID WAS RIGHT - ROMNEY DID NOT PAY TAXESVery plausible, given the economic downturn and Romney's use of off shore accounts. Governor Romney is a very wealthy man. His riches are largely in stocks and capital gains. IRS rules allow for citizens to deduct losses in the stock market and if the losses are large enough, one could pay $0 in income taxes. From 2007 to 2009 the market was in a downfall, steep enough to allow corporate giants like GE to pay no taxes. So it is entirely possible the Romneys had at least 2 years of zero taxes.
ROMNEY GOT CAUGHTAnother possibility is that the Romneys were hiding money in foreign bank accounts for years to avoid paying taxes. When the IRS cracked down on such scofflaws in 2008, offering amnesty, Romney obliged. Tax records would show this to be the case. Is this the "ammunition" Ann Romney spoke of?
Mitt Romney clearly doesn't understand what the issue is. There is a reason that Democrats, Independents, and yes even Romney's own surrogates are pressing for him to release his tax returns. Tax returns say a lot about the candidate - not just how much money he/she makes, but whether they are dutifully fulfilling their obligation as American citizens.
Romney isn't trusted by many people including me. He's claims to be a businessman who knows how to create jobs, but yet he didn't bring that "experience" with him to the Governor's mansion in 2002 where Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation while he was in office - and this was BEFORE the Great Recession. The unemployment rate went down only because young talent left the state (a situation known as "brain drain"). Hence why he doesn't speak of his time in office.
Romney passed universal health care in Massachuesetts - a crowning achievement that has by all accounts been successful. But now he wants to repeal Obamacare - a carbon copy of Romneycare. Y'all know the stories... Which is the point: his tax returns will show he is honestly and truthfully paying his share in taxes and that he's not this vague, deceitful, little rich guy we've come to know.
But then again - maybe his returns will reveal just how deceitful he really is and that's why he cannot release any more than 2 years of returns.
It may be too late though. By fighting this so hard, Rommey has forced people to guess what's in them. And that's never good. It also makes him appear to be hiding something or perhaps he's stalling - amending returns to make them look "better" before releasing them. He's done that before when he paid taxes as a Utah resident back in 2000 when he was running the Olympic Games. Then when he wanted to run for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he found himself in a pickle.
Massachusetts law stipulates that an eligible candidate must have lived in the state continuously for at least 7 years prior to the election. The 2000 tax returns was a problem since it clearly showed he wasn't living in Massachusetts. No Problem! Just file an amended return to say he lived in Massachusetts. Tada! Problem solved.
This question will never go away and will become even more fodder as we approach the debates.
GOP Hates Women? Well Yeah, Kinda
How do Republicans reproduce you ask? The reproduce because they love sex, not women, but sex. As a woman I hope you know the difference. We (Americans) have long held women as somehow less than a full citizen, but yet we reproduced... In other words, we men do not have to love women to reproduce.
The ladies you mentioned Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, Kristi Noem, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer, Susana Martinez, Mary Falin, and Nicki Haley - I'm afraid they are tokens. The "war on women" was coined by liberal media because of policy not because they hate particular women. None of the women you mentioned have initiated restrictions on access to women's health care. Forced ultrasounds (Virginia, Pennsylvania), forced closures of Planned Parenthood (Texas, Kansas) and outright assault on abortion providers (Mississippi, Kansas, others) were all put in place by MEN - all of whom are Republicans. And these ladies have remained silent on the issue. That's what tokens do.
As for the networks not broadcasting Ann Romney's address - it was decided LONG ago that they would cover three (3) days of each convention. Three days for the Democrats, and three days for the Republicans. The GOP is demanding 4 days and because they didn't get it -are crying foul. Ann Romney will probably get moved to another day, and I hope she does because I want to see her too. But that means some other woman will NOT be seen on national TV.
If the GOP were smart - and I have reason to believe they are - they should use the one day that will NOT be on the air to present their platform. Announcing it in prime time (particularly the abortion clause: no exceptions for rape/incest), could be detrimental. I'm just saying....
Teresa Heinz-Kerry isn't a fair comparison to Mitt Romney. You made the same mistake Romney has - assuming that the issue is money. It's not. It never has been. There are many reasons for tax returns - chief among them is whether the candidate followed the law. We can also see what tax laws they may favor.
The Kerrys released their tax returns for multiple years as is tradition. As a result, there was no guessing what was in them, no insinuation, no hiding, it is what it is. Romney on the other hand has made excuse after excuse - the latest being a direct contradiction to prior statements - on why he will not release tax returns. Had he released them months ago - this would no longer be an issue and we'd be talking about something else. Kerry was upfront and transparent. Romney is not.
Finally, you are correct the Republican Party once stood for women's suffrage and other human equalities - but that is now ancient history. A lot has changed since then. After the Civil War, Democrats ruled the South - supporting Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and opposing women's suffrage. But the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s changed all of that particularly after the GOP adopted its so-called Southern Strategy. Now it is Democrats who support the rights of minorities and women far more than the GOP.
I admire your passion. Please keep writing!
What a coward. Assange thinks he's brave enough to leak a million sensitive documents but he'll only do it from afar. He (allegedly) assaulted women in Sweden, claims he's innocent but won't face the music. And this man is somehow a hero??
If he were a real hero he'd man up, face down the charges and pay the penalty if necessary. Real heroes risk everything for their cause. They'll risk their career (Muhammad Ali), their freedom (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.), even their life (every soldier, firefighter, police officer and first responder).
Julian Assange is about as heroic as the tooth fairy.
Ecuador is well within their right to grant asylum to whomever they please, but they've been duped. The US has no means to try or prosecute him as a foreign national. We have a much bigger interest in the person or persons who provided the sensitive material for THEY are the ones who breached security. Assange was only the messenger - the person who leaked the documents to the masses.
Assange clearly doesn't understand US Justice or American interests. Neither does Ecuador. And he has successfully suckered Ecuador by confusing the two issues to create a conspiracy.
I can't wait to see what happens when he screws up in Ecuador.
Talk about playing to the crowd.... Apparently Mr. Gingrich thinks we are stupid. He wants us to believe that Leon Panetta wants to hand over our military to the International community. Further, Mr Gingrich thinks the USA has full authority to act on Syria unilaterally with no input or approvals from our friends and allies. We tried that already - in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. None of which turned out very well. Now he wants us to break Syria.
This is why you are failing in the polls, Mr. Gingrich - you are not paying attention, and talk considerable smack. Are you a war merchant like Dick Cheney? What is your interest in taking on Syria? Do you also have a Halliburton (military contractor) greasing your palm? And spare me the "it is the right thing to do for the Syrian people" speech, we both know that is your political slant, not the real reason. You are far to enchanted in your own greatness to care about what happens to other people, especially non-Americans.
I could go on, but I am through wasting my breath on this subject. Good luck on the campaign trail Mr. Gingrich and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
By doing so, the bank can help preserve your credit rating. In other words, if that check were allowed to bounce, your landlord will quickly report you to the credit rating agencies which in turn will make it exceedingly difficult for you to obtain credit or employment at a later date. So by covering that check, the bank is doing you a big favor.
An aside to that, the banks had a process of paying the larger sums first. The idea was that for most people, the two biggest checks written each month were for rent and for a car note. Both of which have a big impact on your credit score. As a result, you can get hit with an overdraft of $35 for a $5 cup of coffee even though you made that purchase before you wrote the check to your mortgage company. Unfortunately for banks, that makes the situation worse because the perception is they are penalizing their customers for minor transgressions. That rule has been made illegal under the new Banking Law. It remains to be seen if it will be helpful or not.
In addition to not providing me services I really want, banks have taken my tax money too! How rude!
Fortunately, I have the US Government to get my money back and I have reason to believe they will. Other bailouts generated revenue for the US Treasury. Banks are making money and eager to pay back these bailouts. Shortchanging Uncle Sam would be bad for business.
I now know how they make their gains - and their gambits. And I've learned they do not want consumers to do what they do. In short, banks borrow money to make even more money. It was legal before the financial crisis and is still legal after the crisis, but with more scrutiny from regulators. Big banks do not want Joe Schmoe to do the same because they fear they won't get their money back. So on a lot of loans there are restrictions on what you can do with that money. For example, you cannot take out a loan for a house and then buy stocks with it. It MUST go to the house you said you were buying.
But I have news for them. I am going to beat them at their own game. I won't break the law, and I'm not advocating for anyone breaking the law or lawful contracts, but all contracts have loopholes and I've found mine. The result: the next loan I get will go to my favorite stocks. I've been investing with Monopoly money, and have done quite well. I have also invested with real money and did well, just not as well as I have lately. The goal - make my bank pay me, instead of me paying my bank.
Of course, I'll keep you updated on my progress.