In-A-Gadda-Levitre

dude, I have no such standards. I don't think he pays too little or too much. The tax rates are what they are, his income is all unearned, he's entitled to take every deduction and pay whatever rate he complies with. His statement, and nobody held a gun to his head, was that he never paid less than 13%, so he adjusted his 2011 deductions for charity to match the 13% floor. That's all. If he takes the full deduction as Doc mentioned, it's all legal, but breaks Mitt's own promise, nothing more or less. I agree that there's people and media that try to compare his unearned rates with those that primarily have earned income, and that's BS. Unless we're willing to raise capital gains to match earned income (which I don't support), they'll never be close, nor should they be. What would I do if I was in his shoes? I don't know, I probably wouldn't have made that 13% statement before I know what's in my 2011 taxes. But maybe he knew, and the campaign, accountants, etc. agreed he can claim 13% in all years if we take less than the max this year... Who knows? I think maybe I would've taken the maximum and said "We filed an extension on our 2011 taxes because we didn't have all the data. Once we collected everything, we learned that it was below13% for 2011, but only this year, all other years were 13% or more." He would've taken a little heat, but probably less than he does for adjusting his deduction to match the 13% floor.

only for breaking his August statement, not for what % or the $. Que the Obama said he'd be a 1-term president...

Ok, but your post only questions if she was licensed to practice law, not about Brown's issue. and I can't see anywhere in that article where he concedes they're federal cases and maybe she's got a possible out. He talks a lot about her practicing law out of her MA office, and that might not be totally legal, I have no info either way. Seems like she could use that office as an address if she only worked pro hac vice.

Well, don't get your panties all in a bunch. I actually do get the difference between the two. I'm trying to understand why you're comparing what Romney paid (amount, not %) to Obama. The percentages are the subject of ur rant, but your earlier post was talking about amounts, at least that's how I read it.

why would you even make this comparison?

if she's trying a federal case, which all the cases that Mr. Jacobson cited were, she doesn't need a Mass license to appear before a federal court. The so called “pro hac vice,” Latin for “for this occasion”, allows an attorney from another state to appear, as long as there's another attorney with an MA license in the docket for the case. Here's the applicable statute.

not sure either of these is true. Check out the latest Fox Poll that shows not only Romney losing OH, FL and VA, but also has the President leading (albeit slim margins) on the economy and foreign policy. If Romney doesn't win in FL and probably OH and VA too, there's almost no way he gets to 270

umm, what does some teacher's unions contributing to some republicans have to do with Obama/Romney polling or majorities in Congress?

ok, that's the spin from GOP strategists Goeas and Nienaber, here's the left side take on the same poll both are spinning like crazy

yep, we'll find out in November if America agrees

of course it's up to him to declare how much he wants, but that's not what he said. He basically framed the legally required and not a dollar more as a condition of fitness to run for the office.

for the 'paid more to match his statement' if he paid more than he legally had to... yes he did, and if the American people/electoral college think he's had long enough, they'll vote him out, unless they prescribe to that devil you know idiom.

so he would match the statement he made in August that he paid at least 13%, his trustee said yesterday. I also remember a while back he said if he paid more than he was legally supposed to, that he (referring to himself) wasn't fit to be running for president. edit: actually what he said was “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more,” he said. “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”

except that there was no sodomy, no dragging his body through the streets, nor any dark things actually happened. Eyewitnesses stated that his body was found still breathing in the burned out consulate, they picked him up, carried him outside and rushed him to the hospital in a private car. And it all jives with the doctor's statement.

say what?

try 2009

Romney supports covering pre-existing conditions as long as the person has continuous coverage

ya, I didn't see it listed in the 1st page topics, maybe I shoulda done a proper search...

Profootballtalk.com reports that Freddie won't need surgery

during this interview

Mr Gillespie was given the job to muddy the waters, but I kinda agree with alot of what you said. it isn't that crazy. There were more than enough conservatives like Bill Kristol, the WSJ, and others saying he needs to abandon the current strategy; open up on policy details on how he is different and expanding to other issues, like foreign policy. So it's pretty clear that he jumped on foreign policy, lots of opinions about the goodness factor of that, but now it looks like he's yielding and describing his policies more detail (within the economy) for starters - taxes, entitlements, etc. A good chance that he'll follow up with non-economic policies and use the debates to talk about details in some cases. And Ryan is a good social issues guy to go on the stump. He delivered at Values Voters, and probably more after that. One thing that hasn't been said yet (I haven't heard...) is that the Romney campaign is gonna unmuzzle Ryan, so focusing on values and staying on their economic message might be his do this for the team thing. BuzzFeed might be mostly right, but using surrogates. IMO, your last sentence is probably wrong, he's changing the campaign in a big way, based on performance and advice.

Politico has a fairly detailed article describing the turmoil in Romney's campaign, mostly pointing the finger at Stuart Stevens, one of the top strategists. Yeah, I know, it's that liberal media bias trying to make Romney look bad...

if you follow the timeline on this, you'll see a rash of articles by major and minor news agencies early, and of course the blogosphere went totally bonkers, as one might expect. Then, the Pentagon responded affirmatively that this was not the case, and the story died in the news media after the updates (AP, Fox News, etc.). Now the only people that appear to hang on to the original theory are the blogs, who apparently aren't satisfied by the Pentagon's statement. Ok, The Free Beacon isn't buying it, I get that, but unless you provide a reasonably legitimate source that can prove or least shed some light as to why the original statement is still true, just let it go.

nope, just pointing out that your source had been updated and the theory had been debunked.

A Wisconsin judge declares Walker's controversial collective bargaining law is unconstitutional