(06-02-2013 09:43 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 05:23 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  I dream of a day when only Conservatives roam the earth. No libs, no radical Islamists, no way, but I have a dream.

I have a dream that one day, moderate and bi-partisan solutions are a thing again.

So you want the extreme hyper partisan Obama administration gone like the rest of us?

(06-02-2013 12:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 07:22 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 11:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:47 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  This wasn't your position at the time.

You're still full of **** I see.

So to be clear. You are claiming that your position at the time Harry made his claims was that he didn't have a legitimate source for his "tomfolloery?"

Tom?

Tom?

Numnutz, numnutz. Here's my responses on the matter. Hardly a ringing endorsement of anything factual from Reid:

Redwingtom Wrote:So says Harry Reid.

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

Redwingtom Wrote:And lastly to those shooting the messenger...me...I've said many times that Harry Reid is a fool and I don't particularly care for him.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=580169

Redwingtom Wrote:No, Reid should either out his source or shut up. I'm no fan of Harry...never have been.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=582390

Redwingtom Wrote:Reid is an idiot, I've said that for years, but there is likely no slander as Reid said someone else told him that and until the returns are released it can't be proven either way.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=590005

Tsk, tsk fool. Nice selective memory. Allow me to help you out.

Quote:RedwingRobert wrote:

Quote:Smaug Wrote:
Did Harry Reid ever verify his claim from the senate floor that Romney didn't pay taxes?

No Mitt hasn't released his returns yet.

Quote:Reid is an idiot, I've said that for years, but there is likely no slander a Reid said someone else told him that and until the returns are released it can't be proven either way.

Quote:NO! Read again, I was specifically referring to Smaug's post about Reid's claim which refers to the years before 2010, which Romney has still not released, got it?

So just so we're clear. "It can't be proven either way" translates to you as "he doesn't have a legitimate source." Saying on multiple occassions, in response to said "tomfoolery," that Romney needed to release his returns, equal "he doesn't have a legitimate source" eh?

Epic fail fool. Though again, I love the selective posting you engaged in. Really.

(05-31-2013 10:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:In March 2012 the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post published NOM's Form 990 Schedule B from 2008 containing the identity of dozens of donors. The HRC claimed the tax return was provided by a ‘whistleblower.' For months previous to the publication, the HRC had been demanding that NOM publicly release this confidential information even though federal law protects the identity of contributors to nonprofit groups. The publication of NOM's tax return occurred just a few months after Joseph Solmonese, then president of the HRC, was appointed a national co-chair of the Obama reelection campaign. An analysis of the published documents shows that they could only have originated with the IRS.

(05-30-2013 03:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't a tax return be confidential? To make up for this, maybe the IRS should give private Sierra Club donor information to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

It wasn't tax returns. Get your propaganda right please.

I'm sorry Tom, you've confused me now. The article you linked above clearly says it WAS tax returns. Your comment at the bottom clearly says it wasn't. Given that you posted the top portion in response to someone who posted a slightly more edited version of what you posted in an attempt to be completely fair and honest... I can only suspect two things..

1) you were wrong when you said it wasn't returns (and called people names in doing so) and will soon be apologizing for having done so.

or

2) You were right, and will shortly be linking us to the site/email where you similarly called the HRC a bunch of morons for mis-stating the facts.

I mean, if you're going to insist that everyone be fair and balanced and accurate in their criticisms, shouldn't you also be?

Sorry. Too easy to resist.

(06-03-2013 02:39 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Tsk, tsk fool. Nice selective memory. Allow me to help you out.

Quote:RedwingRobert wrote:

Quote:Smaug Wrote:
Did Harry Reid ever verify his claim from the senate floor that Romney didn't pay taxes?

No Mitt hasn't released his returns yet.

Quote:Reid is an idiot, I've said that for years, but there is likely no slander a Reid said someone else told him that and until the returns are released it can't be proven either way.

Quote:NO! Read again, I was specifically referring to Smaug's post about Reid's claim which refers to the years before 2010, which Romney has still not released, got it?

So just so we're clear. "It can't be proven either way" translates to you as "he doesn't have a legitimate source." Saying on multiple occassions, in response to said "tomfoolery," that Romney needed to release his returns, equal "he doesn't have a legitimate source" eh?

Epic fail fool. Though again, I love the selective posting you engaged in. Really.

Numnutz, you're ******* useless. Nobody give a flying **** that you feel the need to paint into a corner every poster on here who you don't agree with on every damned thing they say.

If I'm always wrong and useless, then stop reading my posts and stop acting like a whiny little ***** when I make a perceived internet message board faux pas.

I never said I agreed with Reid on anything, er go, I never said he was correct that Romney paid no taxes. The additional quotes you felt the need to "GOTCHA" post were factual statements I made indicating that we will never truly know until Romney released his tax returns, which is still correct today. Anybody with half a brain knows Reid was only trying to goad Romney into releasing his returns and most likely knowing he never would. In other words, tomfoolery.

(06-03-2013 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 10:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:In March 2012 the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post published NOM's Form 990 Schedule B from 2008 containing the identity of dozens of donors. The HRC claimed the tax return was provided by a ‘whistleblower.' For months previous to the publication, the HRC had been demanding that NOM publicly release this confidential information even though federal law protects the identity of contributors to nonprofit groups. The publication of NOM's tax return occurred just a few months after Joseph Solmonese, then president of the HRC, was appointed a national co-chair of the Obama reelection campaign. An analysis of the published documents shows that they could only have originated with the IRS.

(05-30-2013 03:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't a tax return be confidential? To make up for this, maybe the IRS should give private Sierra Club donor information to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

It wasn't tax returns. Get your propaganda right please.

I'm sorry Tom, you've confused me now. The article you linked above clearly says it WAS tax returns. Your comment at the bottom clearly says it wasn't. Given that you posted the top portion in response to someone who posted a slightly more edited version of what you posted in an attempt to be completely fair and honest... I can only suspect two things..

1) you were wrong when you said it wasn't returns (and called people names in doing so) and will soon be apologizing for having done so.

or

2) You were right, and will shortly be linking us to the site/email where you similarly called the HRC a bunch of morons for mis-stating the facts.

I mean, if you're going to insist that everyone be fair and balanced and accurate in their criticisms, shouldn't you also be?

Sorry. Too easy to resist.

The text you highlighted were not my words. Those words say the Schedule B was released and then later calls it a tax return. To be truthful, I never really bothered to dig up what the HRC originally posted since it's likely not posted anymore.

And if you have any knowledge of non-profit tax returns, you'd know that the return basically IS the Schedule B as it lists all the donors. Nothing else in the return would really serve any political purpose to anyone.

And I didn't call anybody any names on this matter. You're thinking of Numnutz with his Reid-Romney wet dream.

No, Reid was putting Romney on the defensive and deflecting for Obama. A cheesy stunt Romney should sue him for.

Awful lot of words just to say you were wrong Tommyboy. Feel better after your little tantrum? Lol!

I especially like the "how dare you point out me being inconsistent!" Classic.

To BIE and MHB, please accept my apologies. I was able to find that HRC did publish the full tax returns for 2009 and 2010.
http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/th...s-5-donors

However for 2008 though, and this is what Huffingtonpost published, it was only the Schedule B apparently.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/wp-cont...120411.pdf

I should have taken the time to research more fully and provide all the relevant information. Sorry.

(06-03-2013 04:25 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  No, Reid was putting Romney on the defensive and deflecting for Obama. A cheesy stunt Romney should sue him for.

I wouldn't advise him to do so. Unless he had evidence that Reid illegally obtained his tax returns, Romney would have to release his returns to prove Reid incorrect.

(06-03-2013 04:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Awful lot of words just to say you were wrong Tommyboy. Feel better after your little tantrum? Lol!

I especially like the "how dare you point out me being inconsistent!" Classic.

I wasn't being inconsistent and you know it. Sad.

(06-03-2013 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 04:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Awful lot of words just to say you were wrong Tommyboy. Feel better after your little tantrum? Lol!

I especially like the "how dare you point out me being inconsistent!" Classic.

I wasn't being inconsistent and you know it. Sad.

What's hilarious is you really believe you weren't.

(05-30-2013 03:19 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Did you ever wonder who gave Harry Reid the tax info on Mitt Romney? I know I did.

The Mormon church.

(06-03-2013 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The text you highlighted were not my words. Those words say the Schedule B was released and then later calls it a tax return. To be truthful, I never really bothered to dig up what the HRC originally posted since it's likely not posted anymore.

It doesn't matter if they were your words, Tom. You used the quote to prove some point your were trying to make about ONLY being schedule B or whatever, and the same quote also proved a point you were trying to disspell... that it was't tax returns. Are we to take the quotes as gospel or are we to take them as "what someone said they were"? You seem to want it both ways, and in the same quote. The article said they posted schedule B... it ALSO said they had the returns. The claim you were refuting said someone gave them the returns... and not that they had posted them. You seem to want to believe that they DID only post schedule b, but that they didn't actually have the returns they said they had.

Quote:And if you have any knowledge of non-profit tax returns, you'd know that the return basically IS the Schedule B as it lists all the donors. Nothing else in the return would really serve any political purpose to anyone.

Non-sequiter. The giving of returns to someone is illegal, no matter what or how important or how significant the information is. My daughter filed a return basically saying she didn't have to file a return... That IS her return and it would be illegal for someone to have that. It is clearly implied from your quote that they didn't just have the schedule B.

and wait a minute... first you argued that schedule B /= tax returns and now you're arguing that it basically IS? C'mon. This is too easy.

Quote:And I didn't call anybody any names on this matter. You're thinking of Numnutz with his Reid-Romney wet dream.

Quote:It wasn't tax returns fool. And you're an idiot ....

Numnutz, you're ******* useless

You're still full of **** I see

SuckOnAllRears has returned

he has a source for his stupidity

Smn, there are countless fools on here

Another blind moron ... Seriously fool

Really? ALL the above just in this thread. I understand completely that you were baited into many of these comments... I'm not chastising you for the comments... I'm only pointing out that you used the quoted text to support your claims about these useless fools and morons telling them to get their facts straight. Well I'm sorry, but it appears that they HAVE their facts straight... at least according to your own selected evidence.

(05-30-2013 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:44 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't a tax return be confidential? To make up for this, maybe the IRS should give private Sierra Club donor information to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Liberals make me sick.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/...ropublica/

It wasn't tax returns. Get your propaganda right please.

The tax return for the National Organization for Marriage (containing a donor list) was given to the Human Rights Campaign, their political adversary.

This is what liberals do. They use government (legally and illegally) to advance their political and socialist goals. The ends justifies the means. I wish they would try crap like this with me.

Another blind moron who thinks a conservative never did anything wrong to further his politics. Seriously fool?

Thank you very very very much.

This post, in a nutshell, sums up the mental disorder that is liberalism.

"Well it's ok that our side breaks the law because your side broke it one time too!!"

The difference that dunces like Tom will never understand is we don't condone that actions of criminals on the right while your side promotes criminals to their highest offices and then justifies it with insane rationales like the one you just came up with.

Truly disgusting, but at least we can thank you for showing us the true colors of those on the left......namely yellow.

(06-03-2013 11:54 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:44 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't a tax return be confidential? To make up for this, maybe the IRS should give private Sierra Club donor information to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Liberals make me sick.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/...ropublica/

It wasn't tax returns. Get your propaganda right please.

The tax return for the National Organization for Marriage (containing a donor list) was given to the Human Rights Campaign, their political adversary.

This is what liberals do. They use government (legally and illegally) to advance their political and socialist goals. The ends justifies the means. I wish they would try crap like this with me.

Another blind moron who thinks a conservative never did anything wrong to further his politics. Seriously fool?

Thank you very very very much.

This post, in a nutshell, sums up the mental disorder that is liberalism.

"Well it's ok that our side breaks the law because your side broke it one time too!!"

The difference that dunces like Tom will never understand is we don't condone that actions of criminals on the right while your side promotes criminals to their highest offices and then justifies it with insane rationales like the one you just came up with.

Truly disgusting, but at least we can thank you for showing us the true colors of those on the left......namely yellow.

It's like you bleed of ignorant hatred. You're mindset is something truly dangerous for our country. Hyperpartisanship will destroy the US if it isn't addressed. Criminal politicians exist on both sides, and it's plane stupid to condemn an entire ideology based upon the actions of a few. But I don't expect you to admit to this... you've been spoon fed hate inducing rhetoric from pundits who don't care if they tear the country in two.

(06-03-2013 11:54 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:44 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Shouldn't a tax return be confidential? To make up for this, maybe the IRS should give private Sierra Club donor information to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Liberals make me sick.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/...ropublica/

It wasn't tax returns. Get your propaganda right please.

The tax return for the National Organization for Marriage (containing a donor list) was given to the Human Rights Campaign, their political adversary.

This is what liberals do. They use government (legally and illegally) to advance their political and socialist goals. The ends justifies the means. I wish they would try crap like this with me.

Another blind moron who thinks a conservative never did anything wrong to further his politics. Seriously fool?

Thank you very very very much.

This post, in a nutshell, sums up the mental disorder that is liberalism.

"Well it's ok that our side breaks the law because your side broke it one time too!!"

The difference that dunces like Tom will never understand is we don't condone that actions of criminals on the right while your side promotes criminals to their highest offices and then justifies it with insane rationales like the one you just came up with.

Truly disgusting, but at least we can thank you for showing us the true colors of those on the left......namely yellow.

My statement does absolutely nothing of what you claim in your response, nor was it intended to do so.

Merely pointing out the obvious is not condoning the actions or furthering them. Please tell me you can understand this, please?

If you can't, please believe me that I'm not saying liberals can lie and cheat just because conservatives do or did. Thanks.

(06-03-2013 06:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The text you highlighted were not my words. Those words say the Schedule B was released and then later calls it a tax return. To be truthful, I never really bothered to dig up what the HRC originally posted since it's likely not posted anymore.

It doesn't matter if they were your words, Tom. You used the quote to prove some point your were trying to make about ONLY being schedule B or whatever, and the same quote also proved a point you were trying to disspell... that it was't tax returns. Are we to take the quotes as gospel or are we to take them as "what someone said they were"? You seem to want it both ways, and in the same quote. The article said they posted schedule B... it ALSO said they had the returns. The claim you were refuting said someone gave them the returns... and not that they had posted them. You seem to want to believe that they DID only post schedule b, but that they didn't actually have the returns they said they had.

Quote:And if you have any knowledge of non-profit tax returns, you'd know that the return basically IS the Schedule B as it lists all the donors. Nothing else in the return would really serve any political purpose to anyone.

Non-sequiter. The giving of returns to someone is illegal, no matter what or how important or how significant the information is. My daughter filed a return basically saying she didn't have to file a return... That IS her return and it would be illegal for someone to have that. It is clearly implied from your quote that they didn't just have the schedule B.

and wait a minute... first you argued that schedule B /= tax returns and now you're arguing that it basically IS? C'mon. This is too easy.

Quote:And I didn't call anybody any names on this matter. You're thinking of Numnutz with his Reid-Romney wet dream.

Quote:It wasn't tax returns fool. And you're an idiot ....

Numnutz, you're ******* useless

You're still full of **** I see

SuckOnAllRears has returned

he has a source for his stupidity

Smn, there are countless fools on here

Another blind moron ... Seriously fool

Really? ALL the above just in this thread. I understand completely that you were baited into many of these comments... I'm not chastising you for the comments... I'm only pointing out that you used the quoted text to support your claims about these useless fools and morons telling them to get their facts straight. Well I'm sorry, but it appears that they HAVE their facts straight... at least according to your own selected evidence.

(06-04-2013 02:03 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  ......plane stupid.....

(06-04-2013 09:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

So you admit to being a liar and a tool for the left, claiming people were wrong when you apparently know them to be correct... claiming things weren't done that you apparently know were and you don't care.