Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Privacy...

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Mon, Sep 3, 12 at 17:46

Why does Mitt Romney think his tax history deserves more privacy than women's vaginas?

Maybe he's waiting for us to say, "If you show us yours, we'll show you ours?!"

(The lead-in question brought to you by something I read on a social site... though, the response is purely mine.)

But seriously... why DOES Mitt Romney think his tax history deserves more privacy than female reproductive parts?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Privacy...

"If you show us yours, we'll show you ours?!"

What makes you think he is interested in your vagina?


 o
RE: Privacy...

They, the GOP, cetainly seem interested in our reproductive parts, Who we have sex with, probably how we have it, whether we use birth control, the status of the "pre-born", etc, etc. But once we are born, their interest ends, unless we are really, really rich, or commit a crime for which we can be executed by the State.

They are weird folks.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Haven't been following along during the campaign, huh?

It's much bigger than just one vagina... the picture is nationwide. Think a little bigger. It extends to the reproductive parts and options of our female children and grandchildren, and beyond.

Do you care so little about the legal choices of females? I DO care. I want my children and their children to have the same choices I had.

And just in case you missed it, and it requires explanation... it was a social and political message wrapped in sarcastic humor.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Oops... you got in the way, Mom... didn't mean to slap you with political reminders wrapped in sarcasm! ;-)


 o
RE: Privacy...

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on Mon, Sep 3, 12 at 18:32

"It's much bigger than just one vagina... the picture is nationwide. Think a little bigger.

And just in case you missed it, and it requires explanation... it was a social and political message wrapped in sarcastic humor."

Well, thank God. I had an image of endless vaginas side by side marching across a map of the United States...sort of like a string of cutout paper dolls...

"Do you care so little about the legal choices of females?"

Silly, loaded, and pre-lubed question. All choices, or only vagina choices? ALL females, including the unborn ones?


 o
RE: Privacy...

Maybe he's waiting for us to say, "If you show us yours, we'll show you ours?!"

I'll wait. *toe tapping* :-)


 o
RE: Privacy...

"If you show us yours, we'll show you ours?!"

Ok.

He goes first.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Because privacy is not for other people.

Yet in his particular case, claiming "privacy" is actually pathetic. He will end up in court, and he knows it.


 o
RE: Privacy...

I'm glad you brought up the Romney tax disclosure situation again Jodi. That point needs to be continually addressed.

Showing those papers is part of running for the Presidency as his own father demonstrated by example.

If he can't even show THAT, then he isn't ready for the office.

Interesting, that conservatives (and weird birthers and those crazies who decided that Obama's college transcripts and Doctor's notes for petes sake was required documentation for public inspection, no less!) don't seem to think that this refusal to offer up the tax papers (like everyone else, including Romney's father) is a worthy issue.

Or, of course, they too are worried about what ugly would be discovered under THAT rock and would just as soon he keep them to himself?

Anyone but Obama. No matter who or what "anyone" is. They said it, I believe them.

Of course, it begs the question .... WHY anybody but Obama?

After Bush, why the outraged hysteria over Obama?

It certainly begs some digging for answers, doesn't it.

I hope that as Obama addresses the other very important issues in the Presidential debates, he also addresses this issue and doesn't leave it just hanging.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Watch the documentary 2016.

The documentary will explain why many people feel "anybody but Obama."


 o
RE: Privacy...

Watch the documentary 2016.

During the Clinton Administration Jerry Falwell was peddling a film entitled The Clinton Chronicles regarding the death - murder, not suicide - of Vince Foster. Now in the same vein there's more crapola on video. No one ever lost money under-estimating the intelligence of the U.S. public, especially the GOP base.

The hacks are laughing all the way to the bank.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Your comments about the Clinton Chronicles have nothing to do with the documentary about Obama's life.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Who wrote, directed and produced this movie, Demi? Is it in wide circulation and why, right before elections?

I've never heard of it and yet so many have already seen it?

Oddly enough, I suddenly smell the rank odor of desperation.

Maybe the movie has smell-o-vision?


 o
RE: Privacy...

the Clinton Chronicles have nothing to do with the documentary about Obama's life.

The two so-called "documentaries" have much in common; no fabrication is too low when attempting to take down a Democratic Administration.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Watch the documentary 2016.
The documentary will explain why many people feel "anybody but Obama."

And is this, so called, :documentary, based on fact or is it nothing more than someone's opinion, someone that hates Obama?

There is a difference between facts and opinions, that somehow the conservatives seem to confuse, and documentaries are based of facts, not opinions.

free dictionary definition

documentary (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
n. pl. documentaries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

So which is it? real documentary or is it nothing more than fiction being touted by the GOP as a fact and documentary?


 o
RE: Privacy...

The author of the book, Obama's America, which prompted the film,is Dinesh D�Souza, an immigrant.

I don't know what the circulation is, but I do know that the circulation has been expanded considerably the last few weeks.

Your crude and silly comments aside about smell-o-vision, it is an informative documentary. It is not a "hit piece"--the film relates information which citizens of this country did not have when Barack Obama was elected to the presidency in 2008. Obama's actions and inactions make more sense once the totality of his life experiences and the people he chose to influence him are considered.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Littleone, watch it yourself.

Until one views the entire film, one has absolutely no credibility in assessing it.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Bunch of lies, debunked months ago.

Desperate indeed.


 o
RE: Privacy...

What, specifically, is a lie in the film?


 o
RE: Privacy...

Littleone, watch it yourself.
Until one views the entire film, one has absolutely no credibility in assessing it.

Now how is it that my asking questions gets twisted into an attempt to assess something I haven't seen?

Sorry but I won't be attending a movie theatre to see it or any other movie for that matter,

Health issues prevent me from sitting long enough to view a movie in a theatre.

Good try though in the attempt to twist my questions into something other than exactly what was asked. It doesn't work though.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Now, back to the subject.

Privacy isn't guite the right term. Secrecy is more like it. There clearly is a pattern. For instance, why did he order his records as governor be destroyed?


 o
RE: Privacy...

Though the author claims to know the President's innermost thoughts and why he is full of rage, the author has never once spoken to the President. Ever. Not once.

I find that fact to be probably even more interesting than you find the "documentary" for a host of reasons.

One must be discerning about where one CHOOSES to take one's "information" and how that "information" was obtained then evaluated as "factual" and finally offered up to the public in a carefully timed fashion for the greatest monetary benefit to the author.

Unless one is carefully discerning, one must fear leaving the terrible impression of being lumped into the camp of the masses who loudly and enthusiastically preferred a Romney instead of a Huntsman.

That would certainly NOT be a good thing.


 o
RE: Privacy...

I still think Huntsman mainly looked acceptable because the rest of them were and are so heinious.


 o
RE: Privacy...

D'Souza gets paid for this. Lying is his job. Of course, that's fine with those who think lying is a virtue.

Anyway--Romney is the one who tries to hide his tax-records, not Obama. And it's the Republicans who try to eliminate other people's privacy, waging a war on (not only) women, not Obama.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Going to that movie are Obama haters who won't vote for him anyway. It's hit piece, what the GOP is famous for. The Swiftboating movie on John Kerry is a good example. They will do anything to win, propaganda movies, redistricting , photo ID laws where no fraud existed to begin with. Disingenuous cheaters.


 o
RE: Privacy...

I, too, smell that burnt rubbery odor of political desperation... as though every bit of fuel left has been thrown on the fire, but it simply won't stay lit. And it's no wonder, with all the hypocrisy, double standards, surreptitiousness, and the outright lying and deceit going on within what was once called the Grand Old Party, a name now tarnished by its own hands.

Books and movies are not necessarily truthful documentaries these days... not in this age of deliberate word contortions and paraphrasing by those authors who have never met nor spoken to their subjects.

When you want the truth, you normally access the actual person who has it.

But it's become extremely clear that at least one side of the fence can't gain the necessary access, and does not, under any circumstances, want their own "documentaries", or documents, accessed. And so they inject diversion, accessing the only place they stand a chance... the uterus.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Dinesh D'Souza being an immigrant gives him no special qualifications - are we supposed to think that immigrants "should be" supporting Obama and the fact that this one ISN'T means that he has uncovered "the truth"?

Just political propaganda - and someone making money off it.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Jodik, the answer is simple. Mitt Romney believes his tax history deserves more privacy than woman's vaginas because he believes his tax history is more important than woman's vaginas.
First of all, woman's vaginas belong to women.
Secondly, many of those woman are members of different races and different religions.
Third, many of those women dare to think different thoughts and believe different ideas than the GOP is comfortable with.
Those three things make them other - nonhuman. How can nonhumans possibly be as important as Mitt's freedom to make as much money as possible in any way possible while paying the lowest amount possible in taxes.
He gets to pay the lowest amount possible because he is rich and therefore, by virtue of his money, entitled to much more generous deductions than the average nonhuman.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Still waiting for the "lies" in the film, Maddie.

Are you going to put up this time, are we going to get the Romney RESPONSE from you again?

Never mind. I know.

You never produce backup of these types of allegations.

Now THAT is propaganda--labeling a film full of lies and not being able to identify those supposed "lies."
The larger question is since you know so much about the "lies" in the film and all about it, have you viewed it?

Because I have, and if there are any "lies" about Obama's past that was in the film, I want to know about them.
Doesn't anyone want to inform me of the lies that I viewed so I'll know what was presented was a lie?

I'll wait.

The funny thing is all this vitriol towards a filmmaker and film from people who haven't even viewed it.

It's not a hit piece.

It's HISTORY--history of Obama's life and the people that influenced him that many have not heard before (or at least this much).

One can take what one wants from the film and draw one's own conclusions, or no conclusions. I didn't draw any particular conclusions.

It was good to have more information about this man who controls so much and about which we knew so little, however.

Perhaps there are Obama haters that are going to movie, but I am not one of them. There were people from all races at that movie yesterday--maybe this time around people will be armed with a little knowledge and think twice about WHY they are voting for someone.


 o
RE: Privacy...

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 4, 12 at 10:13

If Fahrenhite 911 didn't help Kerry this load of krockumentary won't help Romney.

Mitt Romney 2012
Moore didn't bother


 o
RE: Privacy...

I don't care if it "helps Romney."

It helps people that view it to understand more about our President.

That is a good thing.


 o
RE: Privacy...

It helps people that view it to understand more about our President.

It helps people understand more about Dinesh D'Souza, who believes that the attacks on September 11 were due to Hollywood. Anything but foreign policy, no?

From an interview with D'Souza:

Muslims in Indonesia and Egypt and Pakistan don't see "America," they see the face of American popular culture that is projected by our television and movies and music. They see the dimension of America that in their view corrupts the innocence of children, and undermines the family, and promotes homosexuality as a normal way of life. In fact, this is the America of the cultural Left. What the Left considers "liberating," much of the world considers a scandalous assault on modesty and decency.

D'Souza to Obama with Malice

Writers these days are supposed to cultivate a niche, and D'Souza seems to have homesteaded the intellectual goofiness spot all for himself. His post-9/11 tract, The Enemy at Home, which blamed American sexual decadence for inspiring the Twin Tower attacks, was so far out of left -- or, was it, right? -- field that even his team members abandoned him. And so far D'Souza's Forbes piece has inspired the same reception -- a collective "huh?" -- from allies and opponents alike.

Links provided in the article.


 o
RE: Privacy...

So?

His opinions about morals are his own, just as yours are, just as mine are, just as Barack Obama's are.

I'm still waiting for exactly what "lies" were in the film.


 o
RE: Privacy...

BTW, opinions about D'Souza are just that--someone else's opinions.

I couldn't care less what D'Souza's politics or personal views of the world are.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Ignore the troll. This post is about privacy, not the troll's favourite movie.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Be careful whose crackpot opinions you defend.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Posted by ninamarie 4Ont. (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 4, 12 at 11:01

Ignore the troll. This post is about privacy, not the troll's favourite movie.

*

You have lied again, Ninamarie.

I never said it was my favorite movie--it's not.

I brought up the film to answer mylab's comments about people they say they support "anyone but Obama" for President. This film would explain why so many people are fearful of another four years of Barack Obama.

I'm not defending anyone's "crackpot opinions" Nancy.

I have my own opinions.

I am saying I learned a few things about Barack Obama's past and his associations which explain his actions, and his refusal to act in some ways. The may or may not be the true reasons the man has made the decisions he has, or failed to make certain decisions.

But it is information which the primary media has kept hidden from the public.

Parroting Maddie I see Ninamarie with the "troll" comment when you want to insult someone for only giving their opinion, maybe she'll give you a little cracker for your efforts, or a gold star.


 o
RE: Privacy...

ninamarie, point taken.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Demi, even if you sent me a ticket and paid for my popcorn there's no way I'd sit thru a propaganda film like this one. If isn't meant to influence the election and paid for by the ultra rich Romney supporters, why wasn't it released on November 7th?


 o
RE: Privacy...

Jodik, I think it's simple. Romney does not want citizens and taxpayers to know just how little he pays in taxes. It's bad pr. Why would the Republicans even want to publicize this issue? The party bosses understand that Republican tax policies favour the rich while impoverishing everyone else. And the party bosses understand that their candidate -Romney- will continue that policy.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Yep. You will be bained.


 o
RE: Privacy...

I believe nina is spot on. If those tax returns showed that Romney paid a percentage that most people would think is right, he would have released them a long time ago.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Actually Jodi's question is a very good one, as it perfectly illustrates their 2 motives. Bigotry and greed go hand in hand.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Exactly, Nina... which is why the issues and the questions need to be kept front and center. The public wants and needs to know these things about their potential candidates. I know I do.

There's so much about the Bain saga that doesn't quite add up, nor does it give its share in revenues to help the very government its founder wants to be leader of... that tells me that the rape of the middle class will continue as planned by the Republican big wigs, while the rest of us are allowed to sink further into poverty.

The Democrats have been a little quiet, and while they're no angels, they certainly have no problems when it comes to revealing plans, paying revenues due, or showing documents.

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of hearing from all these extreme fundamentalists who want the US run like a nunnery. We left the Dark Ages behind us long ago, and that's where they're staying. In fact, we're angling for MORE equality and civil liberties. We want no more war. We want an industry push to clean energy sources. And we'd very much like to make our own choices where our genitals are concerned.

Actually, I started the thread because I thought the humor was more than fitting, and it's a great way to keep the issues in play.


 o
RE: Privacy...

I am saying I learned a few things about Barack Obama's past and his associations which explain his actions, and his refusal to act in some ways.

And you learned this based on what facts? Are the facts verifiable or are they just one person's opinion?
There is a difference, you know.

The may or may not be the true reasons the man has made the decisions he has, or failed to make certain decisions.

Now I'm confused, really, really confused.

First you say you learned things about Obama's past that explain why he does or doesn't do things the way he does.

And then you you make a statement that says you don't know if they are true or not, the reasons he does and doesn't do what he does etc.

Trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth, are you?

What does it take to make you understand that documentaries are facts, not opinions and this, so called, documentary is opinion and not fact.

Heck your own words and statements don't even make any sense to anyone except for you.

I couldn't care less what D'Souza's politics or personal views of the world are.

Apparently you do, cause you are pushing his, claimed to be, documentary, that appears to be his opinion and nothing more and then you spout out that you learned from it, and learned things about Obama that you claim the MSM ignores.
AND you claim you learned why Obama does and thinks like he does.

Yup opinion, not fact.

Good try, but it's nothing more than your latest attempts and being a contortionist and you are not very good at it.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Oh, littleone, you must be worried to go to the trouble to post another long taunting diatribe against me for only saying that to understand why many people fear another four years of Barack Obama as president, to view the film 2016.

I think I got through life knowing the difference between a film and a documentary, thank you.

I've gotten through life making pretty good decisions and not needing anyone to tell me what to think or say.

There were facts which explain to me Barack Obama's attitude about the United States--primarily, his associations when a young boy, in college, and in Chicago.

I think I do know why he thinks like he does, but as I can't get inside of his head, it doesn't matter what I think.

What you think how he thinks is no different--neither of us knows, but we have our opinions, and our opinions are based on information and our own thought process.

So, too bad so sad for you--the more some of us learn about Barack Obama the more we're convinced he does not want the same things for this country that we do.

It's all good--if you do want the same things--vote for him.

I don't intend to.
Hate to burst your bubble, but there was nothing in my post--no attempts to do anything but suggest that there are people that do believe just about anyone but Obama would be preferable for another four years.

That's my right to say that, littleone.
You can make it a game and taunt me and you're just blowing more hot air and wasting your time.

I do not care what you think about what I think.
I certainly do not care what you think about anything.

My vote counts every bit as much as yours, unless of course one of us dead and Acorn tries to use it.

We'll see what everyone else thinks in about two months.

Whatever, I have faith in weathering the coming storm.

I hope everyone else is prepared.


 o
RE: Privacy...

How many years of tax returns did Obama release and to whom when he was running the first time for Pres.?

I know Romney was asked for several years worth of returns just like everyone else when he was being vetted by McCain for VP and McCain said there was nothing negative. Nothing was released to the public for any of the proposed VPs. What law requires that a Pres. candidate has to release any tax returns for public viewing? I can't remember hearing about it until this election.

My father was an insurance salesman who handled lots of little cash payments (some as small as $.11 a week). Because of that he was audited every year. A couple of times he got a bigger refund than he claimed. I'm pretty sure the IRS makes it a practice to audit millionaires. If the IRS can't find fault, what exactly is the problem?


 o
RE: Privacy...

To my knowledge, I believe Obama released every form he was asked to release. It's not his problem that the document zeroed in on was a measly birth certificate... over and over and over and over... I'm fairly certain if Republicans were to ask him to show tax forms, he'd have no issue with it, and wouldn't be ducking the question as though it were a grenade.


 o
RE: Privacy...

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 4, 12 at 18:13

If Obama hasn't released his or Michelle's several years of tax returns you can bet Rove would be all over like his cousin the dung beetle.


 o
RE: Privacy...

The Obama's have released 12 years of tax returns as has Biden.

Nothing was released to the public for any of the proposed VPs.

Not true. Palin released 2 years/Cheney released 7 years.

I can't remember hearing about it until this election.

Bush II and Cheney: both released 7 years (although in 2000 Bush released only Form 1040 and Cheney provided a summary of his taxes, but no forms and in 2001 they both only released partial returns)
Clinton: 8 years
Bush I: 3 years
Reagan: 6 years
Carter: 3 years
Nixon: 4 years

Romney/Ryan: 2 years
McCain and Palin: both 2 years

And as we know Romney's own father released many years of his tax returns when he was running. I am sure there are others.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Jodik, kudos! You crafted a very accurate statement:

"When you want the truth, you normally access the actual person who has it."

Since it's pretty clear that you've not accessed Romney about his taxes or your vagina, I feel quite confident in encouraging you to keep searching for the truth.

Your words. And don't bother trying for an out based on "normally".


 o
RE: Privacy...

Ask the compulsive liar and expect he'll tell the truth. Yeah, whatever Patser.

If Obama hasn't released his or Michelle's several years of tax returns you can bet Rove would be all over like his cousin the dung beetle.

Exactly. Had Obama refused to release his, the resident rightwingers would be foaming at the mouth.


 o
RE: Privacy...

Yeah... continually defending the indefensible... the Republican trademark. It does get mighty old.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here