Why anyone would believe anything this man says is beyond me.

My favorite camnpaign nugget is the Obama camnpaign accusing Romney of being the outsourcer in chief, while the president has done precious little to keep jobs here and wants more free trade deals.

When we all know the winning candidate–whoever it is–will immediately attack Iran, then set about gutting the safety net.

http://youtu.be/jybhy0feWeE

Robert Gibbs is moving his mouth. Is he saying something artful or inartful? He speaks of the administration drawing a line, this time for sure. I am not satisfied.

Point of personal privilege.

So we’re back to what part of Yes don’t you understand! Oh, right, only OBots do approval of doing the right thing.

While normally impossible to believe anything the Obama campaign says, it is true that Willard has released only one year of tax returns and in that year his effective rate was less than 15%. It’s also true that he has at least one Swiss bank account and a couple of offshore tax shelters and that’s a first among US Presidential candidates. Obama the milquetoast or Romney the robber-baron? Neither of them look very good to me.

Certainly Romney is a privileged son of Mammon, a candidate who has denied his only semi-worthwhile contribution to his State, his health care enactment. Certainly he is open to criticism on several fronts. But Obama lives in a glass house and throwing stones is simply an amusement, however unfunny.

To his indictment of Romney for his role in costing Americans their jobs I note his appointment as chairman of that unseen and unheard from committee to create domestic employment, the CEO of General Electric, Jeffery Immelt, under whose lead GE has outsourced the most jobs of any US corporation.. Give it a rest Obama, you are as much a corporate stooge as ever was Mitt Romney, as are both your parties.

Vote Green folks, it is one way, however slow, to end the stranglehold our two party fiasco maintains on this nations economy on behalf of the wealthy.

Good morning, pups. Today Prof. Krugman is flying solo. In “Mitt’s Gray Areas” he says that voters can only assume the worst as Mitt Romney keeps details of his finances secret.

Here he is.

The coffee and tea are ready, the cold drinks are in the fridge, and the biscuits are out of the oven. We tried something new yesterday, and WOW was it delicious. If you are fond of avocados, try avocado ice cream. Absolutely splendid stuff. Have a great day.

Thanks, Marion, still like my avocado fresh but thanks. Yep, those tax records aren’t gonna go away.

We love ours fresh too, but this stuff is truly amazing. Rich avocado flavor, just a hint of sweetness, and that glorious green color…

Pistachio/avocado, too? Anything with big hunks of chocolate is my latest favorite.

If Mitt really broke the law, shouldn’t the IRS be looking into it? IMO if there rreally was a violation, Obama would have the IRS working hard on it, almost as hard as DoJ is working on Manning. I think it’s just another rich man, taking advantage of all the loopholes congress can provide.

Boxturtle (Bain capital’s returns would be much more interesting)

We didn’t do it. We just set things up so others could outsource. See? Our hands are clean!

Boxturtle (Something about watching two rich men trying to claim to be men of the people)

As a Texas voter, I’m leaning heavily Green at the moment but swing state voters should be cautious. Obama is bad, unquestionably and I won’t waste everybody’s time with a litany of his sins and omissions but Romney is categorically, empirically, axiomatically worse. If we had a choice in this nation between Ted Kaczynski and Adolf Hitler, I’d have to go with Kaczynski, hands down. I’m not saying that “we don’t suck as much as __________” is a good reason to vote for somebody but that’s what we’re stuck with at the moment. Obama sucks and will continue to suck but he is orders of magnitude better than Willard.

I think it’s just another rich man, taking advantage of all the loopholes congress can provide.

I don’t think anybody has accused him of breaking the law. Just accused him of being a shelter using, tax dodging rich guy.

Making it legal to send jobs and money abroad has been the extra oomph in right wing policy since the century began. The stuff is legal, just like toxic assets.

Willard dodges taxes like he dodged the draft: Legally but incredibly dishonorably.

I love the bit about giving boodles to charity. All of it church related, and comes back to his family in spades.

He’s better than Mitt, but I’d don’t think I’d go with orders of magnitude. I’m more of the “just a little bit better, but just enough” kind of voter.

Boxturtle (Obama should be glad he didn’t get primaried)

Hey, charity begins at home… It’s the philosophy the right wing lives by.

I’m not a huge chocolate fan (weird, I know…!) but I imagine you could add whatever your “imaginary taste buds” tingle at the idea of.

Obama hasn’t said he broke the law, just called on him to prove he didn’t.

Boxturtle (How’s that for mealymouthed politics?)

Neither candidate can make Honor an issue in the campaign.

Boxturtle (Is Obama low enough to wear his peace prize medal at a debate?)

You can quibble with my characterization but the conclusion remains. I’m certainly not going to engage in a debate about the relative stench of both main party candidates. I’m not in a swing state so the pressure is off me. That’s certainly going to take some kind of nose holding though.

Not so much for the pets. Okay, that’s over the top…

Current favorite ice cream: Death By Chocolate. Chocolate ice cream with a fudge ribbon and chocolate chips and brownie pieces.

Boxturtle (Dogs hate it when I have that, they can’t have the bowl)

That’s certainly going to take some kind of nose holding though

Oh, yeah. In Spades. I’m thinking I’m gonna put some Vicks Vaporub under my nose before entering the polls.

Boxturtle (They both have basically the same stench)

Obama hasn’t said he broke the law, just called on him to prove he didn’t.

WTF?!? YOU are the one that brought up the question of Willard breaking the law in comment 11:

If Mitt really broke the law, shouldn’t the IRS be looking into it?

I’m the one who said that Willard probably didn’t break the law in comment 14:

I don’t think anybody has accused him of breaking the law

Then here you come at me, “explaining” that Willard didn’t really break the law, (as it was I who suggested it), and seeming to require me to defend a point which I never made. It’s either too early or I’m too impatient but I think I’m done with these kinds of circular conversations.

Obama = Death of Progressive movement

The Obama campaign has called on Mitt Romney to release years of tax returns to prove he did not break the law

I didn’t bring it up, it came from the original post. I said in my #11 that i don’t think Mitt broke the law. I’m calling on Obama to get the IRS involved if he REALLY thinks Mitt broke the law.

Looks like we’re saying the same thing.

Boxturtle (Or maybe it’s too early for me, too)

Box Turtle, you have told us you are going to vote for Obama, which is, of course your right and privilege.

Now, my question to you is this; will you, after the erection, a day, a week, a month, a year … or years from now … will you willing say, “Oh yes, I voted for Barack Obama”?

You said that, “Neither candidate can make Honor an issue in the campaign.”

Will you “own”, as publicly afterwards, the fact of your vote, as a point of honesty and honor, and its consequence?

Now, I neither expect nor insist upon an answer … in fact, consider this a thought exercise … and that thought is extended to any who vote for either candidate … for while “honor” cannot be an issue for either candidate … should it be for the rest of us?

If voting is an honor, as well as an obligation, or even a “right”, for each of us, “voters”, then do we dishonor that franchise when we knowingly vote for “consequence”, that being the case, actually, every single time we “vote”, which we understand , up-front, will not be “good”, but simply evil, greater or lesser?

Understand, both “bases” are being fed the same line, “Both candidates suck, but our guy sucks less … he is the ‘lesser’ weevil …”

Such a situation is not “important”, it is the premise of disaster.

(Now, Box Turtle I apologize for making use of you as “example” … and I am still wondering how turtles hold their noses when voting. Is it an example of “We shell, overcome”?)

DW

will you willing say, “Oh yes, I voted for Barack Obama”?

Yes. But i won’t like it much. I’m willing to say i voted for Obama last time. But i don’t like it much.

Will you “own”, as publicly afterwards, the fact of your vote

Not sure what you mean here, but if I understand properly, yes.

should it be for the rest of us?

Only YOU are responsable for your vote.

We have to deal with the choices we are given. Or stay home.

Boxturtle (Already don’t like voting for Obama)

Acting out the injured party is getting old. When accusing the Prez of not doing his job, you’re not just commenting on the post that quoted a line about Baron Mitt’s releasing tax records since otherwise it looks like something took place that isn’t being allowed an airing.

Some of us have voted in the past, and didn’t think Al Gore was perfect, either.

Let it go;)…Too many editors here this morning….Maybe ’cause it’s Monday. G’Morning ALL and Have a good one….

A man with his kind of access to tax lawyers would not have broken any laws that can be enforced. It just doesn’t look good for a quarter of a billionaire to be salting away his money in some tropical paradise or in Switzerland. I don’t think Obama will push this too hard, since most of his big donors are doing the same thing. Got to keep the covers on that stuff.

Well said rickd.

It ain’t about “perfection”, Ruth, it is about consequence … which will “own” all of us …

Should not we insist upon better choices and accountability from those who are “erected”?

You do see the “problem” with successively “less” (meaning “more” … over time) “evil”, one imagines?

To feel swelling pride and fulfillment of “obligation” for choosing ANYONE who will visit destruction upon the social contract, for that is what both Romney and Obama are “about”, does not absolve the rest of us from responsibility … ever.

You do agree, yes?

DW

Well answered, Box Turtle.

(As I knew that you would.)

DW

That’s how you know it is all an act to get Obama’s base outraged.

He can push it, he can pound it, he can use it in commercials but it means nada.

The rich will continue on using every and all means to shield their money.

When you hear Paul Ryan say lower rates, broaden the base and close loopholes he’s not talking about closing loopholes on them, just you and me.

In the words of the village idiot President: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, ugh, er, ugh…. won’t get fooled again.” It appears that quite a few people will vote for Obama again, in spite of the fact that they will compound their original mistake by their action. Even the possibility that only a President with a “D” next to his name will be able to destroy the social safety net of the New Deal and the Great Society without even token resistance won’t deter them. We are truly fucked.

Maybe I don’t know much about the law, but couldn’t Obama just ask Holder to check IRS records?

Pretty much right on. Sad to see what’s happening here at FDL this election year. Apparently Mike Tyson was correct: “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

Well, if O gets a second term because he’s the “lesser of two evils” and some here vote for him, they won’t be able to be fooled a third time. Unless, of course, the corporatists amend the Constitution to provide for more than two terms as Puppet-in-Chief.

You know, I really do not find the “lesser of 2 evils” to be such a ludicrous and absurd claim….no doubt lesser is better than greater in such cases….Not the best, obviously, but matters of degrees do count.
I really cannot imagine, or don’t want to, listening to the cloying, flip-flopping, inane R-Rom for the next however many years.