Romney possible federal felony.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
maxiep said:
do you really think Romney posting his tax returns would "settle" anything? Please.
Click to expand...

it would certainly settle this question which is my point. That he won't release his tax records (like everyone else does) strongly suggests that he's got more embarrassing something(s) to hide besides pulling his millions out of the US economy and into offshore tax shelters and Dressage horse write-offs. It's common for political candidates (via their surrogates) to try to use their opponents various public records against them, but it usually doesn't gain much traction. Everyone discloses because thats become part of being a national political figure... thats part of the price of going after this sort of job. Be honest, if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be all for this tactic to force the Democratic Party candidate to disclose... right?

As an Independent voter, I definitely want George Romney's tradition of a decade (or so) of tax records being disclosed to continue, and have got to imagine that this won't play well with other Independents either. It further paints MR as a slimy flip-flopping entitled ass. Mitt may be calculating that it would be even worse for him if he did disclose, but thats the tough shit situation he finds himself in. He should have realized this rock and a hard place day of reckoning was coming... so should the Republican Party for that matter.

STOMP
 
Last edited:
STOMP said:
it would certainly settle this question which is my point. That he won't release his tax records (like everyone else does) strongly suggests that he's got more embarrassing something(s) to hide besides pulling his millions out of the US economy and into offshore tax shelters and Dressage horse write-offs. It's common for political candidates (via their surrogates) to try to use their opponents various public records against them, but it usually doesn't gain much traction. Everyone discloses because thats become part of being a national political figure... thats part of the price of going after this sort of job. Be honest, if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be all for this tactic to force the Democratic Party candidate to disclose... right?

As an Independent voter, I definitely want George Romney's tradition of a decade (or so) of tax records being disclosed to continue, and have got to imagine that this won't play well with other Independents either. It further paints MR as a slimy flip-flopping entitled ass. Mitt may be calculating that it would be even worse for him if he did disclose, but thats the tough shit situation he finds himself in. He should have realized this rock and a hard place day of reckoning was coming... so should the Republican Party for that matter.

STOMP
Click to expand...

Don't you get it? The entire point of this exercise is to force Romney to release his tax returns so the Democrats can have specific numbers to show how fucking loaded he is. Do you think Barack Obama would release his tax returns back to 1999? Not bloody likely.

This entire episode is a charade and a sideshow. And since when are tax shelters illegal? People take every deduction they can get. If you think he did something illegal, charge him. Have the IRS audit him. The problem for the Democrats is that he's squeaky clean. He tithes to his church, which is a giant number. He ran against Ted Kennedy. Do you think if the Kennedy's didn't find anything the Obama's will?

Edit: George Romney's "test" isn't one that's been met by any other candidate, including the two in this race. By the way, don't pretend that the fact I don't like the President's policies makes me a brain-dead follower of his opponent. I don't really give a shit about this issue or the fact that over 30% of the President's income from 2009-2011 comes from abroad (http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/13/ov...-2011-gross-income-came-from-foreign-sources/) I want to talk about real issues. You'll note the current Administration will do anything to change the subject from the economy or their policies. If that's not a sign they've failed, I don't know what is.
 
Last edited:
maxiep said:
Again, you do understand why the Obama Administration is pushing this Bain story, right?
Click to expand...

I most certainly do and articulated it pretty clearly. Obama's campaign smells blood knowing that MR's in a catch 22 situation... big time politics 101. Thanks for dodging my shoe question

STOMP
 
STOMP said:
I most certainly do and articulated it pretty clearly. Obama's campaign smells blood knowing that MR's in a catch 22 situation... big time politics 101. Thanks for dodging my shoe question

STOMP
Click to expand...

What the Obama campaign is trying to do is to demonize someone who made a lot of money building businesses. Since when is a Swiss bank account something of which to be ashamed? I have one. What's the big deal about expanding companies overseas? Why can't private businesses seek higher returns in legal ways?

If you want to know the difference between Romney and Obama? Romney used the money of private investors to make them more money. Obama used our money to pay off his friends. Which one is corrupt?

I have no problem in vetting Romney, but no one--NO ONE--has ever accused him of doing anything illegal, other than Stephanie Cutter, who is backpedalling as fast as she can. They want the tax returns so they can paint him as a rich, out of touch guy. Oh, John Kerry and the Kennedys are totally cool with their wealth.

As for the "shoe" question, I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer. I think this is a bullshit issue. If the Republicans were doing it to the Democrats, I'd call it a pile of crap as well. You mistake me for a partisan hack. I simply want to be left alone, in both my businesses and my private life. President Obama believes he better knows how to manage my life than do I. I knew the guy at the U of C, let me assure you, he isn't.
 
You frequently say you know famous people. Care to tell us the extent to which you knew the President?
 
maxiep said:
What the Obama campaign is trying to do is to demonize someone who made a lot of money building businesses.
Click to expand...

this is where you and I differ in opinion. Making and having a lot of money is generally viewed as a good quality for a politician to have by the electorate. Hell, is there anyone in the Senate who isn't a multi-millionaire? However, how you make your money can matter. For an extreme example, a family fortune partially amassed bankrolling the rise of the Nazi party wouldn't be something a current day politician would trumpet. What Bain has done as a business is not playing well nationally despite your corruption frame job attempt. MR's supposed greatest strength (business) actually tuning out to be his achilles heal because of how his company made their money. I'm sure you disagree with the electorate on this, but that is how it's playing

what the Obama campaign is trying to do is force him to release his taxes especially following the public's reaction to the single year that he did release. If he doesn't, they'll be happy to continue scoring political points painting him as a secretive vulture capitalist as thats playing really well

STOMP
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
You frequently say you know famous people. Care to tell us the extent to which you knew the President?
Click to expand...

Sure. He was a lecturer at the Law School while I was a grad student (and an adjunct) at the GSB. The law, business and economics schools are quite close to one another in the sense that we work together often.

Edit: Oops. I didn't mention the extent. I've had casual interactions with him at cocktail mixers, eaten lunch with him at the Quadrangle Club, have been to numerous functions with he and his wife, etc. He and Michelle know who I am and knew the kind of work I did at the U of C. I would characterize what relationship we had as casual acquaintences.
 
Last edited:
STOMP said:
this is where you and I differ in opinion. Making and having a lot of money is generally viewed as a good quality for a politician to have by the electorate. Hell, is there anyone in the Senate who isn't a multi-millionaire? However, how you make your money can matter. For an extreme example, a family fortune partially amassed bankrolling the rise of the Nazi party wouldn't be something a current day politician would trumpet. What Bain has done as a business is not playing well nationally despite your corruption frame job attempt. MR's supposed greatest strength (business) actually tuning out to be his achilles heal because of how his company made their money. I'm sure you disagree with the electorate on this, but that is how it's playing

what the Obama campaign is trying to do is force him to release his taxes especially following the public's reaction to the single year that he did release. If he doesn't, they'll be happy to continue scoring political points painting him as a secretive vulture capitalist as thats playing really well

STOMP
Click to expand...

What do you think Bain Capital does? I think his money was much more honorably earned than John Kerry's, the Kennedy family's, George W. Bush's, John McCain's, Sarah Palin's, Bill Clinton's or Barack Obama's. If you his money was earned dishonorably, the burden is on you to explain why.
 
maxiep said:
What do you think Bain Capital does? I think his money was much more honorably earned than John Kerry's, the Kennedy family's, George W. Bush's, John McCain's, Sarah Palin's, Bill Clinton's or Barack Obama's. If you his money was earned dishonorably, the burden is on you to explain why.
Click to expand...

no it's not silly. The burden is on you to turn the tide explaining to the general public why they're misunderstanding things. I'd suggest that they'll probably need more convincing then just saying... I'm an internet poster who goes by the handle maxiep and I think MR's money was much more honorably earned then various other politicians... trust me.

STOMP
 
STOMP said:
no it's not silly. The burden is on you to turn the tide explaining to the general public why they're misunderstanding things. I'd suggest that they'll probably need more convincing then just saying... I'm an internet poster who goes by the handle maxiep and I think MR's money was much more honorably earned then various other politicians... trust me.

STOMP
Click to expand...

I did you the courtesy of directly answering your questions, yet you can't answer mine. I'll be happy to explain why he earned his money more honorably. Simply answer my question as to what you think Bain Capital does. Don't pretend to wrap yourself up in public opinion. Even after the tens of millions in negative advertising without much of a rebuttal, it hasn't gained much traction.
 
maxiep said:
I did you the courtesy of directly answering your questions, yet you can't answer mine. I'll be happy to explain why he earned his money more honorably. Simply answer my question as to what you think Bain Capital does. Don't pretend to wrap yourself up in public opinion. Even after the tens of millions in negative advertising without much of a rebuttal, it hasn't gained much traction.
Click to expand...


Many Democrats in Obama's circle have worked or endorsed private equity firms. Don't worry this is just a waste of time, everyone knows what Bain did is no different than what Obama's co-chair did.

Obama is simply a d-bag that's desperate to win by any means, no different than Shit Flopney. ;)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/24/obama-national-co-chair-works-in-private-equity-like-romney/
 
maxiep said:
Don't you get it? The entire point of this exercise is to force Romney to release his tax returns so the Democrats can have specific numbers to show how fucking loaded he is. Do you think Barack Obama would release his tax returns back to 1999? Not bloody likely.
Click to expand...

Obama has released 7 years of tax returns. Hilary Clinton released 20 years.

You're right, I don't get your point because you don't have one. His wealth is a known entity. Everyone and their car-roof-riding dog knows he's filthy rich.

Is Mutt embarrassed by his obscene wealth because he didn't come by it honestly? Is he afraid his offshore accounts and foreign holdings might seem un-American or shady? Might even lead to him being in jail for some serious time? Might prove he's lying about where he worked and lived at various times, committing tax fraud?

Please explain it to me.
 
Chinese Workers Hail Romney's Record as Job Creator.
 
maxiep said:
Sure. He was a lecturer at the Law School while I was a grad student (and an adjunct) at the GSB. The law, business and economics schools are quite close to one another in the sense that we work together often.

Edit: Oops. I didn't mention the extent. I've had casual interactions with him at cocktail mixers, eaten lunch with him at the Quadrangle Club, have been to numerous functions with he and his wife, etc. He and Michelle know who I am and knew the kind of work I did at the U of C. I would characterize what relationship we had as casual acquaintences.
Click to expand...


Awesome sounding party btw. If I ever met the President I would love to trash talk a little.
 
jlprk said:
You frequently say you know famous people. Care to tell us the extent to which you knew the President?
Click to expand...

And every time I email them to ask if it's true, their handlers reply "so and so has never even heard of maxiep!"
 
Masbee said:
I link to Washington Post and Fortune.

You link to a goofy blog.

And you LOL at me.

That says a lot right there.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll go with your source:


By Tom Hamburger, Published: June 21

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission...

...But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field.

Over the past two decades, American companies have dramatically expanded their overseas operations and supply networks, especially in Asia, while shrinking their workforces at home. McKinsey Global Institute estimated in 2006 that $18.4 billion in global information technology work and $11.4 billion in business-process services have been moved abroad.
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...obs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html
 
maxiep said:
Sure. He was a lecturer at the Law School while I was a grad student (and an adjunct) at the GSB. The law, business and economics schools are quite close to one another in the sense that we work together often.

Edit: Oops. I didn't mention the extent. I've had casual interactions with him at cocktail mixers, eaten lunch with him at the Quadrangle Club, have been to numerous functions with he and his wife, etc. He and Michelle know who I am and knew the kind of work I did at the U of C. I would characterize what relationship we had as casual acquaintences.
Click to expand...

You impress with the volume of your writing here. You'd be more impressive, though, if you identified yourself. Then you could drop names more often and refer to your experience more specifically. You'd be like a KingSpeed or an HCP, someone we're honored to know, even if we disagree with you.

I initially learned accounting from a consultant who had 3 masters degrees. As an engineer he had helped develop equipment for VietNam helicopters to track and kill peasants on the ground. After he got to know you he would mention that he had worked for the CIA. He then went into the Big 8. Then he became an accounting professor (the CIA plants its contacts into academic circles). I later went back for the degree and took 3 classes from him. I even hired him to consult at one of my jobs.

As someone on the left I saw his intelligence as soon as I first worked with him. He was my shining light at my first accounting job, though I can't stand his politics. You sound similar. My point is that your traction on this board derives from volume (I gave up arguing with you on BBB--you wore me out), but if you identified some of these jobs you've had, you would gain more authority over we your opponents.
 
Americans aren't above other groups of people, there's nothing wrong with poor people getting jobs in Asia.
 
jlprk said:
You impress with the volume of your writing here. You'd be more impressive, though, if you identified yourself. Then you could drop names more often and refer to your experience more specifically. You'd be like a KingSpeed or an HCP, someone we're honored to know, even if we disagree with you.

I initially learned accounting from a consultant who had 3 masters degrees. As an engineer he had helped develop equipment for VietNam helicopters to track and kill peasants on the ground. After he got to know you he would mention that he had worked for the CIA. He then went into the Big 8. Then he became an accounting professor (the CIA plants its contacts into academic circles). I later went back for the degree and took 3 classes from him. I even hired him to consult at one of my jobs.

As someone on the left I saw his intelligence as soon as I first worked with him. He was my shining light at my first accounting job, though I can't stand his politics. You sound similar. My point is that your traction on this board derives from volume (I gave up arguing with you on BBB--you wore me out), but if you identified some of these jobs you've had, you would gain more authority over we your opponents.
Click to expand...

You both know fancy people, I believe you. ;)
 
maxiep said:
I did you the courtesy of directly answering your questions, yet you can't answer mine.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to be rude, but I think your answer to my shoe question was BS which is why I asked it after your initial post here where you gave it. The Republicans engage in this same sort of big time politics 101 constantly and you never say a word of protest. If you didn't always speak up in support of just one side and against the other, you probably wouldn't be concerned about appearing as a partisan hack.

btw... since he's gotten in bed with the social conservatives, the Romney campaign isn't looking to leave the public alone in their private lives as you claim to want

I'll be happy to explain why he earned his money more honorably. Simply answer my question as to what you think Bain Capital does. Don't pretend to wrap yourself up in public opinion. Even after the tens of millions in negative advertising without much of a rebuttal, it hasn't gained much traction.
Click to expand...

again, you misunderstand. It doesn't matter what I as a single voter think Bain Capital does, especially since it's a foregone conclusion which way the state I live in will vote. Nor does it really matter if you share your opinions on how various politicians earned their $ to the rest of us on this obscure chatsite. What matters is what the general population in the undecided states think, and like it or not those polls absolutely do show BO's side gaining traction. Mitt's hollow "trust me" rebuttals have come all along but not worked... more and more voters want to see his tax returns. It would matter if you could convince those voters of what you think is what

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/120626-JUNE-NBC-WSJ.pdf

STOMP
 
Last edited:
I don't really think it matters what the polls say, since most people are unwilling to give up their free lunch.

Elections are just popularity contests, not a barometer of who is the best candidate.
 
huevonkiller said:
Americans aren't above other groups of people, there's nothing wrong with poor people getting jobs in Asia.
Click to expand...

If that were true, Bain's American companies would pay their Asian employees the same they were paying the American employees they replaced them with.

Face it, Romney made his hundreds of millions of dollars by exploiting slaves, mostly children. He's in the same league as Sandusky.
 
huevonkiller said:
I don't really think it matters what the polls say, since most people are unwilling to give up their free lunch.

Elections are just popularity contests, not a barometer of who is the best candidate.
Click to expand...

And unfortunately, the best candidates are people whom we never hear of.
 
STOMP said:
since Clinton wasn't convicted of a perjury felony, my original question remains unanswered

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/11/22/bennett-falsely-claimed-six-times-that-clinton/132332

STOMP
Click to expand...

Clinton plea bargained (roughly) with the special prosecutor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...001/01/what_sort_of_plea_did_clinton_cop.html

President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges. What kind of agreement is this?

...

The Clinton-Ray agreement occupies a legal space somewhere between a declination and a plea bargain. Ray declined to indict Clinton for criminal perjury (as in a declination), but he also struck a deal that requires Clinton to admit his evasions in the Jones proceedings and to pay a price (as in a plea bargain).

---

He was then disbarred by the state of Arkansas and the Supreme Court of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/opinion/mr-clinton-s-disbarment-case.html

In recommending that President Clinton be disbarred for providing false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, a disciplinary committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court has called for the harshest sanction at its disposal.

The false testimony at the root of this matter came in 1998 during a deposition in the lawsuit by Paula Jones alleging that Mr. Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, had sexually harassed her. At one point Mr. Clinton, in attempting to deflect questions designed to show a pattern of bad behavior, denied having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The President contended then, and continues to maintain, that he did not technically lie because the activities he engaged in with Ms. Lewinsky did not fit the definition of sexual relations used in the trial. That argument was demolished by Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over the Paula Jones case. Cutting to the core issue, she found that the president had given ''intentionally false'' testimony under oath, fined him $90,000 and referred the matter to the disciplinary committee that has now recommended disbarment.

---

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-01/..._court-term-rehnquist-supreme-court?_s=PM:LAW

The Supreme Court Monday announced that former President Bill Clinton is suspended from practicing law before the High Court.The Court, in a one-sentence order said, "Bill Clinton, of New York, New York, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court."As is its custom, the Supreme Court gave no explanation for its order.Supreme Court observers say such suspensions nearly always lead to permanent disbarments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top