zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Come on, you're not thinking outside the box! Just call it a "tax".

Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four
children under the age of six. I'm still working on that situation.

They have kidneys and corneas, too.

Think of the children! You are SO cruel!

Well, I suppose that, between them, their parents have four kidneys
and four corneas.

More likely, with four children under the age of six, there are a total of
five parents involved.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:36:23 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Come on, you're not thinking outside the box! Just call it a "tax".

Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four
children under the age of six. I'm still working on that situation.

They have kidneys and corneas, too.

Think of the children! You are SO cruel!

Well, I suppose that, between them, their parents have four kidneys
and four corneas.

More likely, with four children under the age of six, there are a total of
five parents involved.

Well, it's OK to have more than two parents in CA. "It takes a village."

" wrote in
news
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:36:23 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Come on, you're not thinking outside the box! Just call it a "tax".

Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four
children under the age of six. I'm still working on that
situation.

They have kidneys and corneas, too.

Think of the children! You are SO cruel!

Well, I suppose that, between them, their parents have four kidneys
and four corneas.

More likely, with four children under the age of six, there are a
total of five parents involved.

Well, it's OK to have more than two parents in CA. "It takes a
village."

The village approach works. Even in Jersey. Doesn't mean we don't have
idiots who want fake democracy and mob rule for their own advantages.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 16 Aug 2012 11:41:46 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:36:23 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Come on, you're not thinking outside the box! Just call it a "tax".

Now this time scale gets compressed if the subject has, say, four
children under the age of six. I'm still working on that
situation.

They have kidneys and corneas, too.

Think of the children! You are SO cruel!

Well, I suppose that, between them, their parents have four kidneys
and four corneas.

More likely, with four children under the age of six, there are a
total of five parents involved.

Well, it's OK to have more than two parents in CA. "It takes a
village."

The village approach works. Even in Jersey. Doesn't mean we don't have
idiots who want fake democracy and mob rule for their own advantages.

Really? If someone doesn't pay their taxes in Jersey, they take a kidney from
everyone in the whole town? Hmmm, I'll bet that does put some pressure on the
deadbeats.

On 16 Aug 2012 00:12:00 GMT, Han wrote:


I'm up for a lesson. Where does the Constitution prohibit slavery?

Doesn't an amendment update/change a document? I had to lookit up, but
it seems to be the 13th amendment that this. A few years back. So yes
the Constitution prohibits slavery:
from wikipedia:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.[2]

Thanks. I was puzzled watching a documentary on Abraham Lincoln,
saying there was no prohibition of slavery. Now it makes sense.

13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865 [just
prior to his assassination in April] , and ratified by the states on
December 6, 1865.

Lesson learned :-\
--

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:48:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You would not, for example, have
Harry Reid making speaches that he hasn't paid
taxes in 10 years.

I'm sure if Romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years the IRS would be
involved and it would be known by now or Romney would be in jail.

This is how Harry Reid operates. When he ran against Paul Laxalt in
1974 he was demanding to see tax records of Laxalt's siblings.

Reid lost.
--

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:48:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You would not, for example, have
Harry Reid making speaches that he hasn't paid
taxes in 10 years.

I'm sure if Romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years the IRS would be
involved and it would be known by now or Romney would be in jail.

Why? There is no law that says you have to pay taxes. You have to
file. If you owe, you have to pay.

According to the IRS there are 1500 or so folks who made over a
$million and paid no tax-- legally.

It ain't likely-- but it ain't impossible.

I can't wait until somebody writes the memoir that outs Harry's
source. Was it a Romney-ite to make Harry look stupid-- or was it a D
that just wanted to get a crazy story out early. [If it was true--
then you get the proof quietly, and drop the bomb in October.]

Jim

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:42:10 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:48:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You would not, for example, have
Harry Reid making speaches that he hasn't paid
taxes in 10 years.

I'm sure if Romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years the IRS would be
involved and it would be known by now or Romney would be in jail.

Why? There is no law that says you have to pay taxes. You have to
file. If you owe, you have to pay.


shrugs I guess I do not get why the public DEMANDS tax records that
are private and protected. I know politicians do it voluntarily.

According to the IRS there are 1500 or so folks who made over a
$million and paid no tax-- legally.

It ain't likely-- but it ain't impossible.

I can't wait until somebody writes the memoir that outs Harry's
source. Was it a Romney-ite to make Harry look stupid-- or was it a D
that just wanted to get a crazy story out early. [If it was true--
then you get the proof quietly, and drop the bomb in October.]

Jim

Knowing of Harry, my guess is he just made it up. Speaking in the
Senate he is protected from legal actions against him. Had he said it
at a public gathering things would be different.
--

On Aug 16, 1:31*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:42:10 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:24:17 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:48:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You would not, for example, have
Harry Reid making speaches that he hasn't paid
taxes in 10 years.

I'm sure if Romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years the IRS would be
involved and it would be known by now or Romney would be in jail.

Why? * There is no law that says you have to pay taxes. * *You have to
file. *If you owe, you have to pay.

shrugs *I guess I do not get why the public DEMANDS tax records that
are private and protected. *I know politicians do it voluntarily.

I think where someone who is running for office is
relevant. You wouldn't care if a candidate had been
getting paid substantial sums for years from either
an extreme left wing or right wing foundation or say
a communist foundation? How about if they did
consulting work for Iran?





According to the IRS there are 1500 or so folks who made over a
$million and paid no tax-- legally.

It ain't likely-- but it ain't impossible.

The fact the Harry Reid is a liar is already proven.
Romney's already released
his 2010 return that shows he paid a substantial
amount of taxes and that was after giving a
substantial amount to charity. Ergo, it's impossible
he hasn't paid taxes in 10 years. Is it possible
he paid no taxes in some year? Yes, theoretically
it might be, but very unlikely.



I can't wait until somebody writes the memoir that outs Harry's
source. *Was it a Romney-ite to make Harry look stupid-- or was it a D
that just wanted to get a crazy story out early. * *[If it was true--
then you get the proof quietly, and drop the bomb in October.]

Jim

Knowing of Harry, *my guess is he just made it up. *Speaking in the
Senate he is protected from legal actions against him. *Had he said it
at a public gathering things would be different.
--

Either he made it up or he took it from some sleazy
source and lied anyway. Because he claimed
that Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years. We have
Romney's 2010 return that shows he paid substantial
income tax. Reid knows that, ergo he's a liar.

And another example of Romney's incompetence is
how he handled it. He was the good natured guy
again, kind of like McCain. " Harry is wrong..."
I would have called Harry Reid a GD liar. And then
I would have said
I want an investigation into who leaked this, implying
that Reid may have committed a crime. Did he
use the IRS? Is this becoming the new Nixon
administration, using the IRA against opponents,
etc..... And I would have made it clear that as
you say, Reid abused his privileges as a senator
by doing it on the senate floor, where he is protected.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

shrugs *I guess I do not get why the public DEMANDS tax records that
are private and protected. *I know politicians do it voluntarily.

I think where someone who is running for office is
relevant. You wouldn't care if a candidate had been
getting paid substantial sums for years from either
an extreme left wing or right wing foundation or say
a communist foundation? How about if they did
consulting work for Iran?

I get your points. Assuming the person is honest, by not taking duffle
bags full of cash. Surely that would leak out at some point.
Hopefully before an election.

To date we have these Romney tax records:

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney
2010 | 2011 [partial?]

Ann Romney
2010

Ann and Mitt Romney Family Trust
2010

Tyler Charitable Foundation
2010
--

On 8/14/2012 9:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

more mumblings of an moron.

Without "an" doubt there's a moron in the mix. Somewhere.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/


--
Sherlock

In article ,
says...

On 8/14/2012 9:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

more mumblings of an moron.

Without "an" doubt there's a moron in the mix. Somewhere.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

Why be a typo-Nazi with this guy?
He's a target-rich environment.

Sherlock.Homes wrote:

Ever see that movie with Rosie Grier about the guy with two heads?
That's what we need for President.

We've got one with two faces. Does that count?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:16:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:

Ever see that movie with Rosie Grier about the guy with two heads?
That's what we need for President.

We've got one with two faces. Does that count?


Can he be charged with hooliganism or hostile Indianism?
--

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:15:32 -0500, Truthman wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 8/14/2012 9:27 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

more mumblings of an moron.

Without "an" doubt there's a moron in the mix. Somewhere.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

Why be a typo-Nazi with this guy?
He's a target-rich environment.

Go fer it, loon.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:16:55 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:

Ever see that movie with Rosie Grier about the guy with two heads?
That's what we need for President.

We've got one with two faces. Does that count?

Two faces and *far* more feces.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt
belief, you will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as
you were that there were 700 members of Congress?"

And he can remind you that Mitt ROMNEY gave the McCain people 23 years
of returns, not the 28 you claimed. If you are trying to prove you
can be as small-minded and hypocritical as our elected officials then
I say "Mission Accomplished!" Heckuva job, Bubby!

You are absolutely correct. The number was 23, not the 28 I claimed.

I ****ed up.

Big time.

I extend my heartfelt apologies to all who were taken in by my grievous
error. I will now sit in a corner for an hour and feel shame.

P.S.
Twenty-three, 28, -2, 140. The actual number doesn't detract one whit from
the central fact.

my goodness, I seem to remember that I actually said something like that when
you wanted to excoriate me because I didn't remember the proper number of
congresspeople/senators

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:

Ever see that movie with Rosie Grier about the guy with two heads?
That's what we need for President.

We've got one with two faces. Does that count?

name one that hasn't had two faces

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:12:09 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:42:14 -0400, "Sherlock.Homes"
wrote:


A CNN poll this week found 63 percent believe Romney should release
more tax returns.

What's a CNN? I bet most people (myself included) would not even
understand his tax returns. Ask Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the
Treasury.

Romney has provided what is needed by the election commission. Sure
he can give more, but what is your point?

The election commission does not require the release of anything: tax
returns or college transcripts.

Or birth certificate, even.

mitts father was born in Mexico, so maybe someone should be asking questions to
see if mitt really was born in Michigan

In article ,
" wrote:

The latest polls did show a widening gap. And hence
in reaction fashion, Romney named his VP. And it's
no surprise because Romney, like McCain before him,
is doing an incredible number of dumb things.

Nonsense. The polls still show Romney ahead. Take out the 6-10 point
Democrat bias and it's a landslide.

wow, that's cute how you sneak that in.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt
belief, you will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as
you were that there were 700 members of Congress?"

And he can remind you that Mitt ROMNEY gave the McCain people 23
years of returns, not the 28 you claimed. If you are trying to
prove you can be as small-minded and hypocritical as our elected
officials then I say "Mission Accomplished!" Heckuva job, Bubby!

You are absolutely correct. The number was 23, not the 28 I claimed.

I ****ed up.

Big time.

I extend my heartfelt apologies to all who were taken in by my
grievous error. I will now sit in a corner for an hour and feel
shame.

P.S.
Twenty-three, 28, -2, 140. The actual number doesn't detract one
whit from the central fact.

my goodness, I seem to remember that I actually said something like
that when you wanted to excoriate me because I didn't remember the
proper number of congresspeople/senators

Yeah, but I profusely apologized and felt shame.

My cat still looks at me funny.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:

Ever see that movie with Rosie Grier about the guy with two heads?
That's what we need for President.

We've got one with two faces. Does that count?

name one that hasn't had two faces

Heh! Good point.

The problem is this: we (the public) evaluate our politicians by our
standards and do not understand that government folks - the "guardian"
mentality - operate within a completely different set of rules and a
different philosophy. These rules have been honed by 5,000 years of
trial-and-error and experience. For example:

The Commercial Mindset - "Cooperate for the sake of the task." In order for
the job to reach a successful outcome, the participants should cooperate
toward reaching the agreed-on result.

The Guardian Mindset - "Deceive for the sake of the task." If you tell the
truth, you may lose your country and/or your life.

After I read "Systems of Survival" by Jane Jacobs, I never looked at
politicians the same way again.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


BTW, what special consideration do foreign nationals get at any American
college/university?

From the universities because they pay out of state rates, usually in
cash so there is no student loan, etc., overhead.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


BTW, what special consideration do foreign nationals get at any American
college/university?

From the universities because they pay out of state rates, usually in
cash so there is no student loan, etc., overhead.

Out of state rates are probably always higher, otherwise they wouldn't make the
distinction. Are you saying that the universities derive a benefit from student
aid (other than they get students to attend?)

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Sherlock.Homes wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:

From now on, when you put forth some poignant and heart-felt
belief, you will get the rejoinder: "Are you as sure about that as
you were that there were 700 members of Congress?"

And he can remind you that Mitt ROMNEY gave the McCain people 23
years of returns, not the 28 you claimed. If you are trying to
prove you can be as small-minded and hypocritical as our elected
officials then I say "Mission Accomplished!" Heckuva job, Bubby!

You are absolutely correct. The number was 23, not the 28 I claimed.

I ****ed up.

Big time.

I extend my heartfelt apologies to all who were taken in by my
grievous error. I will now sit in a corner for an hour and feel
shame.

P.S.
Twenty-three, 28, -2, 140. The actual number doesn't detract one
whit from the central fact.

my goodness, I seem to remember that I actually said something like
that when you wanted to excoriate me because I didn't remember the
proper number of congresspeople/senators

Yeah, but I profusely apologized and felt shame.

My cat still looks at me funny.

maybe you should teach your cat how a keyboard is laid out and explain to it how
you can make 28 turn into a typo when 8 isn't anywhere near the 3. a more
typical typo might have been 20 or 2d

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

Out of state rates are probably always higher, otherwise they wouldn't make
the
distinction. Are you saying that the universities derive a benefit from
student
aid (other than they get students to attend?)

No, actually the other way. I am saying that there is an overhead for
student aid related to financial aid offices, processing the loans, etc.
Those from REALLY out of state, not only pay out of state rates, but
they also tend to be direct bill a lot of the time.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


10 years of tax returns was good enough for mitts father

Was Harry Reid or an equivalent out there making things up out of whole
cloth without even needing a tax return. It was a whole 'nother time
when Daddy was out and about.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


10 years of tax returns was good enough for mitts father

Was Harry Reid or an equivalent out there making things up out of whole
cloth without even needing a tax return. It was a whole 'nother time
when Daddy was out and about.

one has nothing to do with the other

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

Out of state rates are probably always higher, otherwise they wouldn't make
the
distinction. Are you saying that the universities derive a benefit from
student
aid (other than they get students to attend?)

No, actually the other way. I am saying that there is an overhead for
student aid related to financial aid offices, processing the loans, etc.
Those from REALLY out of state, not only pay out of state rates, but
they also tend to be direct bill a lot of the time.

Let's posit that out of state students require a certain amount of overhead,
possibly the equivalent of an in-state student getting financial aid because
they have to be "vetted" to a higher degree than others, ie getting transcripts
and other info

In article , Han
wrote:

Right on.
I could (of course) say things against drug companies etc, but that would
be rehashing old stuff. In principle I have nothing against Bain making
companies more efficient. This is a capitalist society after all. What
I am against is that in many cases the current version of capitalism has
turned into robber baronism. There was a lot of good in STandard Oil,
the railroads, what have you, but there was a lot of bad greed for the
sake of greed too. That is again in the current version. I have nothing
against CEOs of well-run companies earning a really good living. But
they don't seem to realize that excessive wealth concentrated in too few
breeds resentment. Trickle down economics, job creators etc, is all the
same. It means me first, screw you. Now, if you feed the middle class,
they'll buy stuff, oil the economy's wheels, and all will be better off.
Perhaps the ultra-rich won't be as rich as they are now in comparison
with the average or median Joe, but many more people will be happier. Me
first philosophies of the rich are food for communist agitators.
I better stop and take a nap.

trickle down rewards the rich for being rich and does nothing to create more
jobs, better or cheaper products, etc. the real reason the richicrats fear
giving the middle class better tax breaks is because they will vote with their
money on which companies survive and those companies will not be quick to adapt
to the idea that the consumer will not tolerate crap when they don't have to

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:41:59 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:36:18 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


and that somehow changes the point I was trying to make?

It shows that you're stupid as a stump and that everything you say can
be
chalked up to more mumblings of an moron.

I see. You can't win an discussion on point so you resort to name calling

But you *are* dumb as a stump. You've proved it here.

so you think of yourself as a stump?

Again, you prove your single-digit IQ. You're consistent, at least.

so you are a stump

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:41:33 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

...

It is common occurence now a days to call couples by cute or descriptive
mash
ups of their name. I was just predicting what theirs would be.


You must live in California. Something invented by the far left
liberals. Is there something in the water out there on the left
coast?
--

yeh, freedom of thought. you should try it.

or maybe it's the way we can directly change the gov't with propositions. you
should try it, although it's often a classic case of being careful of what you
wish for.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:39:43 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Lesson is, even when mentioning points not essential to your argument,
it
is prudent to be as accurate as possible.

I agree, accuracy is highly desirable, but it doesn't matter a wit that I
got the number of congresspeople wrong. in fact, since my number was
high,
my point becomes even more relevant. A small group of legislators and
they
can't pass laws

It proves, as usual, that you have no idea what you're talking about.

not at all

You really are stupid enough to believe that. I'll bet you think there are
57
states, too.

oh hell, maybe I just may a simple typo. I understand that happens sometimes

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:37:07 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

I'm practicing to be a part of the rymney clique

You would be a failure, then. People can see right through your
liberal views. You do try to spin things.
--

everyone tries to spin things. some of us are just more accurate than others

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


10 years of tax returns was good enough for mitts father

Was Harry Reid or an equivalent out there making things up out of whole
cloth without even needing a tax return. It was a whole 'nother time
when Daddy was out and about.

one has nothing to do with the other

One has EVERYTHING to do with the other. Complicated taxes make for easy
pickings for out of context. Look at the hooha around overseas accounts
which have always been legal as long as they are declared and taxes
paid. But you certainly wouldn't know that from the Dems spin. The Dems
have been able to demagouge this even though there is no indication he
did wrong. I wouldn't let me taxes be played like either.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

P.S.
Twenty-three, 28, -2, 140. The actual number doesn't detract one
whit from the central fact.

my goodness, I seem to remember that I actually said something like
that when you wanted to excoriate me because I didn't remember the
proper number of congresspeople/senators

Yeah, but I profusely apologized and felt shame.

My cat still looks at me funny.

maybe you should teach your cat how a keyboard is laid out and
explain to it how you can make 28 turn into a typo when 8 isn't
anywhere near the 3. a more typical typo might have been 20 or 2d

I never claimed my error was a typographical mistake. Where'd you get that
idea?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

P.S.
Twenty-three, 28, -2, 140. The actual number doesn't detract one
whit from the central fact.

my goodness, I seem to remember that I actually said something like
that when you wanted to excoriate me because I didn't remember the
proper number of congresspeople/senators

Yeah, but I profusely apologized and felt shame.

My cat still looks at me funny.

maybe you should teach your cat how a keyboard is laid out and
explain to it how you can make 28 turn into a typo when 8 isn't
anywhere near the 3. a more typical typo might have been 20 or 2d

I never claimed my error was a typographical mistake. Where'd you get that
idea?

I could have sworn I read one of your posts stating that was the reason you put
28 in your reply. If not, then I apologize

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


10 years of tax returns was good enough for mitts father

Was Harry Reid or an equivalent out there making things up out of whole
cloth without even needing a tax return. It was a whole 'nother time
when Daddy was out and about.

one has nothing to do with the other

One has EVERYTHING to do with the other. Complicated taxes make for easy
pickings for out of context. Look at the hooha around overseas accounts
which have always been legal as long as they are declared and taxes
paid. But you certainly wouldn't know that from the Dems spin. The Dems
have been able to demagouge this even though there is no indication he
did wrong. I wouldn't let me taxes be played like either.

As I see it now and have always seen it, it's not about the legality, it's about
the fact that people like Mr Romney bemoan the lack of jobs and to some degree
make that about lack of investment...and then they put their money in overseas
bank accounts that take that money out of the investment pool. Seems like being
a traitor to their economic beliefs.