He doesn't like Obama and he is an attention whore with a media outlet. I kind of like him though. :thumbup:

If Romney paid less in taxes it's bc he found a loophole in the system or just followed the rules. So wouldn't you pay less taxes if you could?

Of course. Anybody in their right mind would. Both of these guys are filthy rich and neither is paying more in taxes than they have to, so I don't really understand why anyone would want to see either's tax records. Seems silly.

indeed.

so, why not just show them and put the matter to rest? since there is nothing interesting to see, we will get bored real fast and move on...

Right. Tax records, birth certificates, college transcripts, etc.

If he is going to show all his tax records, will it changes people mind one way or the other?Nope, IMO.The most important issue here is not rich or poor, nor more or less taxes paid. It is more of who can handles on the economy better.

Because the accusation is (in part) that he used unlawful methods to achieve his low rate.

If he did do it lawfully, I would not oppose him doing whatever he wants... However, I do think that he should not be entitled to pay such a low rate on such large amounts.

you are right, we saw the birth certificate already...

even though i find it interesting, a person has no say in his time, date or place of birth, and also in his age but those two items are requirements in the presidential system (US born, 35 y.o), even though McCain was born in Panama and had no ability at the time to force his parents to fly to the US for his birth... He is still eligible, it was US military base where was born...

while birth certificate says nothing about the person, his tax records are a different story - a person is personally (person.. personally... i spend too much personal time online!!!) responsible for his records...

just make it public, feed the dogs the bone, and move on... otherwise, it will keep coming back...

In the end, it is about the economy and current administration cannot run on their record. Blaming Bush doesn't work anymore. Libya ambassador was killed by Al-Queda, not by You Tube.

In the end, who ever wins, someone else is going to be upset. The U.S. economy is on the tank and the rest of the world feels it.

I work for the DSS, the bureau that provides security to all US diplomatic missions worldwide and more...
Ambassador Stevens was killed because his security detail was overpowered by the attackers, who had chosen a soft target of our temporary consulate in Benghazi. Ambassadors do not travel with heavy security details, and it has been like that for several decades. That fight was lost on the intelligence level - I am not part of the investigation but I bet you, that some local hire at the Embassy "ratted" out the fact that the Ambassador was traveling to the consulate and that was it - the attackers gathered together and struck... 2 former Seals can't resist 40 attackers for too long... God rest their souls in peace...

Youtube or not, that war is neverending, and you can't deny that the youtube movie provided a smokescreen for the attack - once the smoke was cleared, more and more details emerged... blind speculations by people who have no idea what they are talking about should not have any bearings on the truth, even if their specualtion hit the spot - most of the investigative information is classified, and is not available for the public for the very reason to protect lives...

and the economy? Mitt is a very shrewd businessman, who I would love to run a company that I have shares of - but he is for the profit, not for the public service... two different things...