Willard’s ace in the hole is that when he releases his tax returns, it’ll show that he hasn’t cheated at all, and even if he has, a retroactive revision will cure all those clerical errors.
I would disagree with you on the rule of law part. It its most basic sense, you are correct. If the PUBLIC asked for his tax returns, and left it at a request, then that’d be perfectly fine. But what Harry Reid did was to not ask, but allege that Romney not only paid no taxes in the last ten years, but also called him a felon or a liar. Both of the latter are considered slander (aka defamation of character), unless you have evidence to back it up. That’s where the rule of law is coming into play. He is defaming Romney to score political points, without any form of evidence to back it up.As to the “bully” aspect? If you set aside the fact that the vast majority of males at some point in their lives bullied another person, let’s look at how long ago this was. I’ve done things in my past that I’m not particularly proud of, but they are in my past. I also learned from them, recognized my errors, and changed who I was. He’s had … what, 30 years? You can’t tell me you are the same person you were 30 years ago. People do grow and change through events in their lives. You assume that he has remained the same individual he was 30 years ago. And I’m willing to bet dime to a dollar that you would be assuming wrongly.
braindead Premium Member over 11 years ago
Willard’s ace in the hole is that when he releases his tax returns, it’ll show that he hasn’t cheated at all, and even if he has, a retroactive revision will cure all those clerical errors.
joe vignone over 11 years ago
When you are dealing with a snake like Twit you have to get low.
Murphy224 over 11 years ago
Shut up nerd! ………………… J/k
woodwork over 11 years ago
ALFRED E. NEUMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
Wraithkin over 11 years ago
I would disagree with you on the rule of law part. It its most basic sense, you are correct. If the PUBLIC asked for his tax returns, and left it at a request, then that’d be perfectly fine. But what Harry Reid did was to not ask, but allege that Romney not only paid no taxes in the last ten years, but also called him a felon or a liar. Both of the latter are considered slander (aka defamation of character), unless you have evidence to back it up. That’s where the rule of law is coming into play. He is defaming Romney to score political points, without any form of evidence to back it up.As to the “bully” aspect? If you set aside the fact that the vast majority of males at some point in their lives bullied another person, let’s look at how long ago this was. I’ve done things in my past that I’m not particularly proud of, but they are in my past. I also learned from them, recognized my errors, and changed who I was. He’s had … what, 30 years? You can’t tell me you are the same person you were 30 years ago. People do grow and change through events in their lives. You assume that he has remained the same individual he was 30 years ago. And I’m willing to bet dime to a dollar that you would be assuming wrongly.
joe vignone over 11 years ago
I remember 250 indictment for Raygun’s appointments. Top that!
lonecat over 11 years ago
At least a chair has a leg to stand on.