truth on hold

@ buftex Sure seems that way. I guess they reckon being evasive and leave em guessing is better off in this environment than showing you were a super high earner that used the available alternatives to lower your tax liability. Idk really know since I haven't seen the returns. Maybe there's something in that's egregious and embarrassing. I just don't know what if it was all legal. Or maybe he's taking a philosophical standpoint it shouldn't matter how a private individual paid his taxes. But like you I can see its hurting him, whatever it is thats going on, but would it be worse if he acquiesed? Is this just damage minimization or poor campaigning? I'm leaning on the latter.

If it were strictly kick in the nads I'd go kicker too. But I'm assuming a beast like wilfork wouldn't need to risk being that precise in a dark alley

@ buftex, the Top 1% of wage earners paid 38% of individual income income taxes. The focus on tax rates is maligned. They may have lower rates because at higher income levels you have more options. If some of those options are abusive than by all means eliminate them. don't hold it against successful people for exercising their legal rights . But again that's my view which I'm trying to avoid in this thread. Its obviously a good tactic by the BO camp which so far MR has managed poorly. Just another reason I see BO getting a 2nd term.

Unless he did something illegal (which would be revealed by other means) I don't give a crap what he did with his taxes. Obama is hoping to make an issue out of him using off shore accounts or tax loopholes to pay lower tax rates than middle income wage earners. So what? I bet close to 100% of people in his income category did on advice of accountants and financial advisors. I wouldnt want someone so financially iiresponsible to have paid millions extra every year in taxes. But BO will use it to reinforce the case MR will pursue a regressive tax code. Its a good campaign tactic in this environment.

This is a shame on both parties. Neither would budge on their special interests. And to avoid reelection threatening votes, they all agreed to kick the can down the road until after November. I agree with other sentiments here, I've had enough of the sh@t from these parties. The perceived differences pale in comparison to the overlap. I may vote independent for 1st time not because I think they can win this year, but hopefully to contribute real Choice in future ones.America's going down the sh@utter on the most Important issues, and the current 2 party system won't do f@ck all to solve it.

For reasons I outlined earlier, we're actively taking sides in a conflict, based not on human rights but on politics. Yes I would have us not do that.

Theres no doubt about Hilary taking the global diplomatic lead on this. We are very much involved. Please acknowledge this. So then are we following the rest of civilized world (lol @ Israelis & Saudis guardians of civility), or are we using our influence to get others to join us? Clearly the latter

Its not a matter of if we're doing it alone or not. Was Iraq justified because we found a co-sponsor in the UK? Did the 3,000+ dead Americans and trillion taxpayer dollars somehow not count? We're intervening in Syria for 2 reasons: Israel sees them an ally of Iran, and Saudi's see it as a threat to Sunni Islam. yeah nice work Bush and now Obama, playing lapdog to the perpretators of the longest running occupation since WWII, and the archetype of despotism and discrimination of all kinds; Saudis are about as anti-Democratic, anti-individual freedom, mysoginistic as a country can-be. And Sunni in Islam is historically the more radical of the 2 (i.e. al Qaeda.) So let's be clear on what we're doing supporting Saudi'S against Iran: INSERTING OURSELVES IN THE MILLENIUM OLD CONFLICT BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIITE MUSLIMS, on the more radical-side to boot!!! You seriously going to tell me this is what the founders wanted? That it benefits American civilians? That its not driven by special interests and intimated politicians? That we have a snow ball's chance in hell of successfully sorting out a millenium's old religious conflict 3 continents removed? really? Really? REALLY? let the Saudis and Shiites sort out they're own f#ing mess. they earned it, deal with.

i think the reason US was only UN country on security council to veto the classification of Israeli west bank settlements as "illegal" instead of "illegitimate" was fear of opening a can of worms at home. Extreme right wing Zionists like Adelson give money to the settler movement, and monies are also collected in some synagogues and churches. if classified as "illegal" by US it would mean these activities would now be illegal in US, pitting both parties against big money donors, alienating some Jewish and Christian-fundamentalist voters, and opening the door for enforcement actions within synagogues and churches.

fyi, I voted for Obama so don't paint me into a partisan corner (also voted for Bush in 2000). yes its possible to be critical of either party and any politician, no matter what Fox tells people. I have to disagree with your assessment that we're not doing anything and are bystanders in Syria. We're admittedly providing mission-critical communication devices & tactical information to the insurgents/terrorists (of course under the bogus cover of "limiting civilian casualties") and if history is any guide more than likely giving them weapons &/or resources to get them. All the while championing the Saudi agenda who are known to be directly funding and arming the insurgents/terrorists. You think Obama's policy is any different than W's? Given the popular mood I don't see W overtly starting another war either. But abetting the "enemy's enemy" and championing economic warfare is pushing for war. It highly elevates the chances of military confrontation, likely triggered from a desparate country like Iran or Syria attacking US in some incident, so we can say "we were provoked", "this was put on us", etc etc. As Ron Paul said economic sanctions are an act of war. So why do I despise Hillary? Well personally I can't f$#*ing stand her hag-like appearance, monotone droning-voice, and the transparent and superficial nature of her positions, which she demonstrated in the primaries and now as Sec of State. No one can deny she has alienated a lot of people right from the get go in her initial spotlight on the national stage in 92' when she championed health care reform post-Bill's election. yet she's presented by her admirers as somehow polished, balanced, articulate, smart, insightful, effective, well intentioned, humble public servant the country is lucky and priveledged to have. IMO nothing could be further from the truth. Im sure some will disagree, but Im telling you my reasons for not being able to tolerate her, which i think you wanted to hear. Her appointee Susan Rice went as far to say in an interview that Syria was responsible for insurgent acts of terror because of the brutal way the Assad regime suppressed demonstrations. for those paying attention, this was extraordinary ... a high ranking US official justifying terror, something Bush painted as black and white and inexusable under any scenario. So now US has opened the door to excusing terror against allies like Israel and Saudis in their puppet state of Bahrain against. HOWEVER Hilarty can't be blamed alone for the continued Neocon-inspired foreign policy under Obama, she answers to him and he must have final say over policy.

Visual metaphor of me taking on someone like Vince wilfork At 170 lbs I'm approx half the weight of many interior lineman. To put into perspective that kind of size advantage it would be like me taking on someone 85 lbs (average weight of 8 yr old boy)

Why isn't Hillary the Hawk forming a "coalition of the willing" to isolate the despotic regime in Bahrain, and stop their brutal crackdown of peaceful protesters who want democrcacy and to end human rights abuses? Oh yeah, oops Bahrain is a puppet state of our "dear friends" Saudi Arabia, the icon of despotism in the world, so controlling they even named the country for their family. Whoops, never mind Hillary ....

Thanks for the clarification. It did seem out of character for you.

He looks monsterously huge whenever he steps on the field. Too bad he's likely going to get cut.

I went Paul, Johnson, Romney, Obama I was 78% with US public

My comment "goes down" is to be taken in the context of the article, which means legally takes a fall. Never even used the word "killed". Dont ever put those kinds of words in someone's mouth.

But if he's so good why is this his 4th team in what will be 7 seasons? Why did Houston and Pats let him walk after only a season ?

For me it's Vince wilfork. Just seems like a beast that could generate a huge amount of force quIckly and pretty much annihilate an average size guy like me. I also considered ngata, but he doesn't seem to have the street nastiness of wilfork

Exactly this is silly.

This one off coast of Cuba seems more intriguing to me. Could be lost city of Atlantis which Plato wrote was west of the mediterranean. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0528_020528_sunkencities.html I wish cameron would check this out instead of messing around in challenger deep, which has been done before.

Spitzer's desperate, been trying to make amends for his hooking up with prostitutes while on official state business. First his CNN show flopped, and his next move is to keep beating the Wall Street dead horse. fact is this is not "huge" at all. Most consumer loans and fixed income investments are not LIBOR based. And even in those cases that are we're talking about at most 1 - 2 bps degree of skew ... for those scoring at home thats 1/100th to 2/100ths of a percent. And for every borrower that paid another bp in interest, an investor received another bp in interest income ... zero sum game. Will the benefactors be asked to give the bp back? It sounds like a common and known practice in the insitutional bank market where everybody knew what was going on, and everyone played the game too. LIBOR is not an observed level, it's derived from estimates submitted daily by banks. of course there's going to be some fudging going on. Get back to work everyone, and accept you'll have to pay your mortgage off the good old fashioned way. Don't expect Chase to forgive a nickel of it over this. Just press cretins like Spitzers trying to create controversy and generate media interest, and showboating politicians.

I hope that SOB goes down. I hate his guts.

I agree with all that except discussing jobs at portfolio companies. Thats not a metric Private Equity firms judged themselves on, so trying to set it up as one now is doomed to fail ... I dont have all the numbers, but they very well have had more firings than hirings. Dead end path for Romney to go down. The PE firm Carlyle had good ammo to defend itself, showing the returns they got for investors and that those investors by and large were state pension funds and college endowments ... i.e. Bain delievered for its investors, for better, more secure retirements for retirees and better educations for our nations college youth. Thats the only societal benefit case one can make for PE. And then parlay that into he saw an opportunity to use Bain's consulting practice as a PE powerhouse, which he did. Hes an opportunistic capitalist who makes things happen, his skill is spotting economic opportunities and inspiring others to do same. He did it at Bain, he'll do it in the White House. Far better than a career lawyer-politician ever could, whose proven as much with 4 years of economic stagnation. I dont have all the answers, but something like that would be my framework. Take your chance and sink or swim with it, because trying to be apologetic or pretend the objective was portfolio company job growth is guaranteed "sink" IMO

Then we can count on Phil being a crappy psychologist ... lol