Hey, Mitt: TAKE OFF THE GLOVES

[RobinFinderson]

Arguing with her about that issue shortly after she has had that experience makes you sound like a putz in any era.

I don't think she was communicating a sense of being traumatized or hurt from her experience, or I would agree with you about an appropriate level of sensitivity. Also, if you look at that thread, you will see that I was one of the ONLY people to acknowledge the problem of men cat-calling at women. Plus I'm not actually 'arguing' with her about this issue. But whatever. Just like you and I have a unique little dance we do with each other here on CUF, my response to Babs fits well within the parameters of our well-established relationship. We pick on each other for trivial shit, and every once in a while, Babs tries to latch on to something I said and misrepresent it to the extreme (like when she interpreted my advocacy of a sex-ed message that would be valuable to thirteen-yo girls as championing teenage sexual liberation/promiscuity). That is just what we do. It is a game that we both play, and she tends to play meaner.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Speak for yourself, Babs. You might even be speaking for the vast majority of women, but there are also many women who would not have felt uncomfortable the way you did at the Occupy Austin homeless encampment.

Are you just trying to make Triplet's list of people who "get it"?

[RobinFinderson]

Are you just trying to make Triplet's list of people who "get it"?

Maybe, but probably not. I am willing to accept the reality that at some hours of the day, an Occupy demonstration might be populated by a majority of homeless protesters. Where DDD and I tend to differ in opinion is on whether the status of one's shelter situation should impact the message of the demonstration. DDD argues that the homeless 'exploit' the rest of us, which makes their demonstrations a 'sham.' I really don't understand that argument, having never felt that a significant issue pertaining to homelessness is my personal exploitation by homeless people, so I'm pretty sure that I don't 'get it.'

[LA Ute]

Perhaps the Romney campaign has been doing this already, but I'd ramp up Ann's involvement in the campaign.

This is happening: http://j.mp/zDJt2Y

ORMOND BEACH, Florida—Ann Romney downplayed her husband's wealth in advance of the release of his 2010 tax returns at a rally tonight, telling supporters that "our riches are with our family."

Under assault for weeks by Democrats and his Republican opponents for not making his returns public, Romney announced this morning on Fox News Sunday that he would post them on Tuesday — the same day as President Barack Obama's State of the Union address.

"I understand Mitt is going to release his tax forms this week," she said. "I want to remind people where our riches are — our riches are with our family. That’s where you can measure them — it’s in our children and grandchildren."

She's not. You can take the girl out of Cranbrook, but you can't take the Cranbrook out of the girl.

Lol. Have you ever met Ann Romney?

[creekster]

I don't think she was communicating a sense of being traumatized or hurt from her experience, or I would agree with you about an appropriate level of sensitivity. Also, if you look at that thread, you will see that I was one of the ONLY people to acknowledge the problem of men cat-calling at women. Plus I'm not actually 'arguing' with her about this issue. But whatever. Just like you and I have a unique little dance we do with each other here on CUF, my response to Babs fits well within the parameters of our well-established relationship. We pick on each other for trivial shit, and every once in a while, Babs tries to latch on to something I said and misrepresent it to the extreme (like when she interpreted my advocacy of a sex-ed message that would be valuable to thirteen-yo girls as championing teenage sexual liberation/promiscuity). That is just what we do. It is a game that we both play, and she tends to play meaner.

Now you are showing yourself to be a putz that doesnt know when to shut up. (IMO)

Oh, and long-winded. I forgot that.

Btw, I never dance. I am always in the band.

[creekster]

Maybe, but probably not. I am willing to accept the reality that at some hours of the day, an Occupy demonstration might be populated by a majority of homeless protesters. Where DDD and I tend to differ in opinion is on whether the status of one's shelter situation should impact the message of the demonstration. DDD argues that the homeless 'exploit' the rest of us, which makes their demonstrations a 'sham.' I really don't understand that argument, having never felt that a significant issue pertaining to homelessness is my personal exploitation by homeless people, so I'm pretty sure that I don't 'get it.'

Rest assured; we all see you dont get it.

[RobinFinderson]

Now you are showing yourself to be a putz that doesnt know when to shut up. (IMO)

Oh, and long-winded. I forgot that.

Btw, I never dance. I am always in the band.

lol. Good post, creek.

[Uncle Ted]

This is happening: http://j.mp/zDJt2Y

Romney, who is worth nine-figures, admitted last week that he pays an effective tax rate of about 15 percent — which is lower than that of many middle-income Americans.

Great... now the Dems will start up their seemingly endless b*tching again about the capital gains tax rate being too low. Thanks Romney.

[CJF]

Great... now the Dems will start up their seemingly endless b*tching again about the capital gains tax rate being too low. Thanks Romney.

That quote is wrong. 75% of Americans play less than 15%. I wish it was correct but it is not.

According to this very slanted article it is actually more than 97% of tax payers.

[il Padrino Ute]

That quote is wrong. 75% of Americans play less than 15%. I wish it was correct but it is not.

According to this very slanted article it is actually more than 97% of tax payers.

That article is no more slanted than anything else out there.

[myboynoah]

That quote is wrong. 75% of Americans play less than 15%. I wish it was correct but it is not.

According to this very slanted article it is actually more than 97% of tax payers.

He is using IRS data, so how can it be slanted? Also, I wonder if those tax percentages take into account any tax credits (like EIC and child tax credits), which don't lower the tax percentage but effectively lessen the amount of tax a person actually pays.

[CJF]

He is using IRS data, so how can it be slanted? Also, I wonder if those tax percentages take into account any tax credits (like EIC and child tax credits), which don't lower the tax percentage but effectively lessen the amount of tax a person actually pays.

I believe it does take that into consideration.

[ERCougar]

I've gotta admit--the 15% thing bugs me a little. I'm guessing he's able to pull this off through most of his income being capital gains, and I see the benefits of a low capital gains rate, but still feeling the pain of my fourth estimated tax payment for the year, that rubs a little wrong.

[Surfah]

I've gotta admit--the 15% thing bugs me a little. I'm guessing he's able to pull this off through most of his income being capital gains, and I see the benefits of a low capital gains rate, but still feeling the pain of my fourth estimated tax payment for the year, that rubs a little wrong.

The 15% thing is going to kill him. And it's really stupid that it will. Your resentment is misplaced. Mitt and others like him (Mr. Buffett) are only taking advantage of the tax code as written. You can't fault them for it. They wouldn't be the successful businessmen they are if they didn't.

Someone here, maybe Viking, made the comment that after his records are released and people go after them that Mitt needs to try and identify any of the tax loopholes and laws he takes advantage of that Newt may have supported. Still it's really silly for someone to tout that they're a better presidential candidate because they paid twice as much in tax.

[ERCougar]

The 15% thing is going to kill him. And it's really stupid that it will. Your resentment is misplaced. Mitt and others like him (Mr. Buffett) are only taking advantage of the tax code as written. You can't fault them for it. They wouldn't be the successful businessmen they are if they didn't.

Someone here, maybe Viking, made the comment that after his records are released and people go after them that Mitt needs to try and identify any of the tax loopholes and laws he takes advantage of that Newt may have supported. Still it's really silly for someone to tout that they're a better presidential candidate because they paid twice as much in tax.

I don't resent him at all--I'm a huge fan of the Massachusetts Romney (name-dropping opportunity! He interviewed me for my mission.) My resentment is completely directed at the tax code. Really, like I said, I'm all for a low capital gains tax, so I can't even say that. I'm just bugged I don't get to keep more money.