Wasserman Shultz on Romney....What is he hiding with swiss bank accounts..........

Poor Debbie, lets look at your statements as well..........
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. And Mr Moen Nation called her a role model and a compliment when I compared him to her..........

Good Gawd Dems, does the hiprocracy never end?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html

How about Kerry ? Pelosi? Rangel? Oh, I see, wealth is only dirty if a Republican has some.

 

Debbie is a typical liberal: Hypocritical, self-righteous, judgmental, elitist... well... the list goes on...

 

None of these people you named seem to be running for president so I'm going to guess that if you find this type of investment activity reprehensible, you have no choice but to vote for Obama or be a hypocrite yourself since Romney is chest-deep off-shoring his money to avoid paying taxes.
Investments are one thing, off-shoring or hiding your money in Cayman Island accounts, Swiss bank accounts, and phony corporations is just unpatriotic. You can tell just how crooked Romney is by his refusal to release any more than his last year of taxes while Obama has released them all. What is Romney hiding? Seems like fertile ground for an October surprise to me.
Again, the Right-wingers in this forum buy into yet another false equivalency to try and defend the wealthy elite at the expense of the middle class. Right-wingers are born tools.

On the bright side, I am less than two-week out from a heck of a lot of Walleye fishing. Mua ha ha ha ha ha!

 

Unlike Romney who is just so down to earth.....Right? The word elitist doesn't even begin to describe Thurston Mitt Romney Howell but somehow you are more bothered by Wasserman Schultz who has an entire net worth of between $-289,989 to $234,997. Romney has $100 million in one IRA alone but Wasserman Schultz concerns YOU with her vast empire of wealth for some reason. Is there any opinion you have that isn't driven by partisan political memes? Not that I’ve ever witnessed.

 

So, is moen claiming it's "crooked" to hold off-shore accts or to not release one's tax returns? It sure sounds like he is. Exactly what law is being broken here?

 

It's simply amazing how so many libs will heap criticism on Romney for doing something they do themselves. How very hypo-typical of them.

 

Is it ethical dumb?

 

No law is broken. It is just that Debbie thinks she is so superior to Romney that she can do it, but the Republicans cannot. I mean just look at our local liberal. It was fine for Gore, Debbie, Rangel, Soros, Kerry, Rockefeller, Harman, etc. But then it is unethical for Romney? Totally hypocritical!

 

Just throwin' this out there....doesn't it seem idiotic to call one's actions "crooked" in one post then, once called out, switch the question to an "ethical" concern?

 

Only an idiot would think the crooked and unethical are mutually exclusive attributes. Just throwin' that out there for idiots to consider.

 

I guess I would have to respond to the above by asking this:
If holding off-shore accts is "crooked" why haven't charges been brought against Romney? And why would a hesitance to make one's personal financials public be called "unethical"?

 

Heres Nancy Pelosi for ya. 2011 Financial disclosure statement, LMAO.I am sure thgis is ok tho because Nancy has a D next to her name, not an R. Hiprocacy on the highest levels and yet Mr Nation is STILL trying to carry the water for these folks !!!!!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/n...een-1-5-million-on-asian-investments-in-2011/

 

Here is what you don't seem to get Jack. Nobody is scrutinizing Romney for "Foreign investments". Hell, we have a global market these days and there are literally no investments that do not have a foreign component to them. My 4013B has investment packaging that includes foreign invests and so does yours in all likelihood. It's impossible to avoid today.

What Romney is being securitized for is making money in this country by dismantling companies, shipping their jobs overseas, making huge profits while tax payers and workers are left holding the bag, all while Romney hides his cash in blind trusts, Swiss banks, and Cayman Island accounts to avoid taxes. That goes well beyond simply holding investments in foreign countries. Again, you RWer’s are fooled by false equivalencies.

 

OOPS! From the OP

 

Stick with the program. We're not talking about Ted Kennedy here. BTW, just what jobs did Romney ship overseas? Also, what's wrong with making huge profits? And what workers were left "holding the bag" (whatever that means)?

 

God! You're thick.

 

Hides his cash ? How do you think the Leftys got their information on his offshore accounts and trusts? HIS TAX RECORDS !!!!!!! Nobody should begrudge wealth.

As for shipping jobs overseas, how much of our "stimulus money" went to foreign nations? LOADS of it. How about GM ( Obama Motors ) shipping entire plants worth of jobs to China?

I think again, this attack on Romney will again backfire, now the all the leftys wealth and foreign accounts wil come to light.

Just curious Mr NAtion, Who did you vote for in 2004 ? Ah yes, I figured that.

 

I've NEVER voted for a Republican in a presidential election and I've voted in EVERY election since I was 18. Ford pardoned Nixon, Reagan was dim-witted ideologue, Bush 41 was Reagan lite, and Dubya was Dubya. You guys voted for Bush/Cheney and now can't even talk about them 3 1/2 years after they left office. Do you know how many appearances Romney has had with Bush? ZERO! Not one. If you were fooled by Bush/Cheney, why would I not believe that you'll be fooled by the next shiny object the GOP waves in front of your faces? Now you guys want those of us on the Left to listen to the same people that brought us Bush/Cheney. Where is your credibility in picking presidents? I can say that I am happy with Obama, can you say that you were happy with Bush/Cheney?

 

This legislation alone should be enough to keep you from being "happy with Obama". That is, unless you agree with indefinite, unconstitutional detention of citizens:

Indefinite Detention, Endless Worldwide War and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act

February 22, 2012

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.

The breadth of the NDAA’s worldwide detention authority violates the Constitution and international law because it is not limited to people captured in an actual armed conflict, as required by the laws of war. Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way. The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal. Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate around whether the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States.

Although President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the NDAA’s detention provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use them, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The provisions – which were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review – are inconsistent with fundamental American values.

Both Congress and the president need to clean up the mess they have created. No one should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority. The NDAA’s detention provisions must be repealed.

http://www.aclu.org/indefinite-dete...r-and-2012-national-defense-authorization-act

 

Currently, I'm waaaay more bothered by the return of institutionalized torture. Since when do you care what the ACLU says?

Romney’s Fundraiser With Cheney Highlights His Embrace Of A Bush-Era Foreign Policy
By Ali Gharib on Jul 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm

This evening, former Vice President Dick Cheney will host a fundraiser for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

A GOP operative told Reuters that Romney’s “instinct is to call the Cheney-ites” on foreign policy issues, and indeed, Romney reportedly turned to a former Cheney aide to guide his hard line on China. Romney’s Cheney-esque foreign policy raising questions about how much a Romney presidency would resemble the disastrous Bush-Cheney administration.

The questions are more than reasonable: Romney and Cheney already share controversial positions on matters like ending the Iraq war and whether the U.S. should torture terror suspects. Here’s a quick rundown of their positions on these two issues:

CHENEY/ROMNEY
TORTURE: Cheney said he was a “big supporter of waterboarding,” an interrogation method that is considered torture. “I would strongly recommend we continue it,” he has said. Romney agrees. His aides have said he does not believe waterboarding is torture,” and refused to rule out the technique’s use by a potential Romney administration.
IRAQ: Cheney supported starting, continues to defend, and opposed ending the Iraq war. He said ending the costly war “would be a real tragedy.” When the war was winding down over his objections, Cheney said the U.S. should “negotiate with the Iraqis on some stay-behind forces.” But Cheney and his comrades seem not to care at all about what Iraq’s democratically-elected government had to say about it. Romney also said withdrawing from Iraq was “more than unfortunate. I think it’s tragic.” Like Cheney, Romney called for the U.S. to maintain “an ongoing force, somewhere between 10 and 20 and 30,000 [troops] there,” without ever raising what Iraqis might think about it.
IRAN: Cheney said in 2009 that he wanted the United States to attack Iran in the waning days of the Bush administration. “I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues,” Cheney said. While Romney tries to keep quiet on Iran during the campaign, his top foreign policy advisers don’t. John Bolton, who regularly calls for war with Iran, said recently that he hopes negotiations fail. And a host of Romney advisers — many of whom helped bring about the Iraq war — also advocate for war with Iran.

With their closely mirrored language on these controversial issues, it’s no surprise that Romney said last year that Cheney was a “man of wisdom and judgment.” For good measure, Romney added: “That’s the kind of person I’d like to have [as vice president] — a person of wisdom and judgment.”

That sort of lavish praise and the fundraising relationship could portend more war and strife for the U.S. in a potential Romney administration. Cheney is the second Romney fundraiser host this week who has been intimately involved with advocating for an attack on Iran.