Update - MSNBC slams ad for a second day - video

Apparently, you can't read either...

You don't know if Reid can back it up or not. So thanks for your partisan speculation (regurgitated from the usual Rightie talking-points sites.) Romney has the choice to refute the charges by releasing the returns. The fact that he won't just tells us that there is something in them that is so damaging he would rather stonewall.

Romney has not denied Reid's claims in regard to his source that Romney has not paid income taxes. Romney stated that he has paid lots of taxes, but did not say that he had paid income taxes.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Apparently, you can't read either...

You don't know if Reid can back it up or not. So thanks for your partisan speculation (regurgitated from the usual Rightie talking-points sites.) Romney has the choice to refute the charges by releasing the returns. The fact that he won't just tells us that there is something in them that is so damaging he would rather stonewall.

You mean that he will not even attempt to answer to stupidity. Again, lets get this straight, I will do this slowly. R E I D not Romney made the accusations, burden of proof falls on Reid, not Romney. So he needs to produce the proof. What is really funny here is, the fact that the IRS does not seem to be going after Romney. Now if he had not paid his taxes for 10 years plus, they would already be involved. Especially since that would be alot of money, so you kept going in your dream world, and if there if proof of him not doing this, then it should have been turned over to the IRS for investigation. If Reid has this information and is not turning it over to them, and a member of Congress, he has a duty and an obligation to turn this information over to have it properly investigated and if guilty, then romney goes to prison and its a no brainer, so what is it, cause you can't have it both ways. Either he has the information and is falling in his duties as both a citizen of the United States and a member of Congress or he is a liar.

navycpo7 wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Apparently, you can't read either...

You don't know if Reid can back it up or not. So thanks for your partisan speculation (regurgitated from the usual Rightie talking-points sites.) Romney has the choice to refute the charges by releasing the returns. The fact that he won't just tells us that there is something in them that is so damaging he would rather stonewall.

You mean that he will not even attempt to answer to stupidity. Again, lets get this straight, I will do this slowly. R E I D not Romney made the accusations, burden of proof falls on Reid, not Romney. So he needs to produce the proof. What is really funny here is, the fact that the IRS does not seem to be going after Romney. Now if he had not paid his taxes for 10 years plus, they would already be involved. Especially since that would be alot of money, so you kept going in your dream world, and if there if proof of him not doing this, then it should have been turned over to the IRS for investigation. If Reid has this information and is not turning it over to them, and a member of Congress, he has a duty and an obligation to turn this information over to have it properly investigated and if guilty, then romney goes to prison and its a no brainer, so what is it, cause you can't have it both ways. Either he has the information and is falling in his duties as both a citizen of the United States and a member of Congress or he is a liar.

Dang...I'm still waiting for a link to anything that says what he did was illegal. Just a guess, but maybe that's why the IRS isn't going after him. However something doesn't have to be illegal to be embarrassing and/or sleazy.

You don't know if Reid can back it up or not. So thanks for your partisan speculation (regurgitated from the usual Rightie talking-points sites.) Romney has the choice to refute the charges by releasing the returns. The fact that he won't just tells us that there is something in them that is so damaging he would rather stonewall. I'm still waiting for proof that Reid is lying...and for Romney's tax returns...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Romney has not denied Reid's claims in regard to his source that Romney has not paid income taxes. Romney stated that he has paid lots of taxes, but did not say that he had paid income taxes.

No surprise that the collectivists suspect others of the tactics that they use on a regular basis. This supposed logic sounds a lot like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" to me. . . . . .

no one can call pants on fire until Romney turns over his tax returns for all to see. As far as I know, McCain's campaign is the only one to see his returns and he was not chosen for VP. Just sayin' let's see them

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: no one can call pants on fire until Romney turns over his tax returns for all to see. As far as I know, McCain's campaign is the only one to see his returns and he was not chosen for VP. Just sayin' let's see them

Well... if Reid is lying (and the Washington Post and Politifact says he is) then they certainly can call "pants on fire" and give Reid for Pinocchio's. What part of "lying" don't you understand? Or are you that stupid... or that partisan?

washington post and politifact have NO information to confirm or deny Reid or Romney. I am certainly neither stupid or partisan to trust "news" organizations that are partisan, however. Once I have seen the facts and truth for myself, I make up my own mind. I don't have it made up for me and blindly follow as some seem to.

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: washington post and politifact have NO information to confirm or deny Reid or Romney. I am certainly neither stupid or partisan to trust "news" organizations that are partisan, however. Once I have seen the facts and truth for myself, I make up my own mind. I don't have it made up for me and blindly follow as some seem to.

Then you didn't carefully read the two articles. Both "reviews" had tax experts weigh in on the claim that Romney "hasn't paid any taxes in ten years." Please don't dig your stupid hole any deeper.

the real point here is that no one can claim that they know anything without showing us the returns. I want to see returns prior to 2002, prior to politics. I will make up my own mind.

I don't like your personal attacks on me for sharing my viewpoint. It is a shame that people are resorted to this instead of actually talking things through. If you don't agree and don't have a response, then just attack the person. That is just wrong.