Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns

[GaryC 7]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

Ok, it's clear where you stand. God help us if the majority feel like you do. To me Wright and Ayers ARE issues that are just as important as the economy or the war. It shows how he thinks and what his values are.

Yes, they are aren't they Gary?

Somehow, I think the majority are more interested in having a President that is more interested in real issues rather than in those only people that beat dead horses would rather focus on... but then that must just be my rational mind at work again. Shame on me. So where do I stand along this apparently biased viewpoint? I prefer to refer to it as focusing on real issues...

Did you just get off the boat? You know as well as I do that American politics turns on values as much as issues. To me the two are equally important. I want someone that I agree with policy wise and I also want someone that shares my values. Your naive if you think that issues are all people look at.

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/...ntialTaxReturns

"Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.

Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly. In the hope of making this information more widely available, the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns."

[HAL 9000 96]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

Ok, it's clear where you stand. God help us if the majority feel like you do. To me Wright and Ayers ARE issues that are just as important as the economy or the war. It shows how he thinks and what his values are.

Yes, they are aren't they Gary?

Somehow, I think the majority are more interested in having a President that is more interested in real issues rather than in those only people that beat dead horses would rather focus on... but then that must just be my rational mind at work again. Shame on me. So where do I stand along this apparently biased viewpoint? I prefer to refer to it as focusing on real issues...

Did you just get off the boat? You know as well as I do that American politics turns on values as much as issues. To me the two are equally important. I want someone that I agree with policy wise and I also want someone that shares my values. Your naive if you think that issues are all people look at.

What values would those be Gary? Beating dead horses of non-issues?

I mean, lets give it an ounce of common sense here. With all the media hype and hoopla-histerical attention that one "issue" has received... you'd figure at least one news source would have found out all there was to know about the reverend since the person WAS a public speaker... in the meantime all you have is the illogical "guilt by association" argument and that neither stands up to reason nor does it make any real sense.

Its all about being sensical and logical, not presumptively beligerent against the opposition candidate.

Issues, not non-issues.

It is really is naive to think that voters can be tricked into voting based on subjective character rather than actual issues and fact. Since the smear campaign hasn't been able to prove anything other than its own petty game, don't you think it is time to give up argumenting the unargumentable?

[rebeccajo 14]

Anybody who is willing to stay 100 more years in Iraq obviously has different values than I do.

So I'm not votin' for 'em!

[GaryC 7]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

Ok, it's clear where you stand. God help us if the majority feel like you do. To me Wright and Ayers ARE issues that are just as important as the economy or the war. It shows how he thinks and what his values are.

Yes, they are aren't they Gary?

Somehow, I think the majority are more interested in having a President that is more interested in real issues rather than in those only people that beat dead horses would rather focus on... but then that must just be my rational mind at work again. Shame on me. So where do I stand along this apparently biased viewpoint? I prefer to refer to it as focusing on real issues...

Did you just get off the boat? You know as well as I do that American politics turns on values as much as issues. To me the two are equally important. I want someone that I agree with policy wise and I also want someone that shares my values. Your naive if you think that issues are all people look at.

What values would those be Gary? Beating dead horses of non-issues?

I mean, lets give it an ounce of common sense here. With all the media hype and hoopla-histerical attention that one "issue" has received... you'd figure at least one news source would have found out all there was to know about the reverend since the person WAS a public speaker... in the meantime all you have is the illogical "guilt by association" argument and that neither stands up to reason nor does it make any real sense.

Its all about being sensical and logical, not presumptively beligerent against the opposition candidate.

Issues, not non-issues.

It is really is naive to think that voters can be tricked into voting based on subjective character rather than actual issues and fact. Since the smear campaign hasn't been able to prove anything other than its own petty game, don't you think it is time to give up argumenting the unargumentable?

Your amazing and also useless to argue with. Go ahead and ignore the character issues. The majority of people that are not on the left will not. It will be your sides undoing. Be prepared for the sh!t storm that will start later this year.

Anybody who is willing to stay 100 more years in Iraq obviously has different values than I do.

So I'm not votin' for 'em!

That was a deliberate miss quote by Obama. Don't fall for it. It shows that Obama is just as much a politician as anyone else.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What McCain said when asked about President Bush’s theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years was this: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/...;position=rated

[HAL 9000 96]

From selective memory to taking public comments out of context... priceless jewels abound.

Talk about selective! Your selective dismissal of important character issues is astounding. Really Mav, if you don't see a problem with Wright and Ayers it's clear you don't care about the character of our next president.

How so brother Gary? I clearly stated this is an issue of comparing apples to apples, not apples to bananas. I think up til this point, the entire tabloid issue of the Wright(and the frenetic attempt to add Ayers) is well beyond dead horse status. If the McCains had any resolve to have a chance at being elected in that same tic for tat fashion, she will unfortunately have to open up those records.

Unless, of course, you'd prefer to get into the issues without confusing macro and micro economic proposals?

There McCain loses according to what voters are looking for in their next President. On top of what they (the voters) have inherited from the current one, of course. You have to be able to put these things in perspective... selectively negating reality will only get you corrected in equal fashion.

"character" is not an objective term

Exactly so. It lends itself to very subjective interpretations of what we want to hear. In other words, selective fantasizing.

Ok, it's clear where you stand. God help us if the majority feel like you do. To me Wright and Ayers ARE issues that are just as important as the economy or the war. It shows how he thinks and what his values are.

Yes, they are aren't they Gary?

Somehow, I think the majority are more interested in having a President that is more interested in real issues rather than in those only people that beat dead horses would rather focus on... but then that must just be my rational mind at work again. Shame on me. So where do I stand along this apparently biased viewpoint? I prefer to refer to it as focusing on real issues...

Did you just get off the boat? You know as well as I do that American politics turns on values as much as issues. To me the two are equally important. I want someone that I agree with policy wise and I also want someone that shares my values. Your naive if you think that issues are all people look at.

What values would those be Gary? Beating dead horses of non-issues?

I mean, lets give it an ounce of common sense here. With all the media hype and hoopla-histerical attention that one "issue" has received... you'd figure at least one news source would have found out all there was to know about the reverend since the person WAS a public speaker... in the meantime all you have is the illogical "guilt by association" argument and that neither stands up to reason nor does it make any real sense.

Its all about being sensical and logical, not presumptively beligerent against the opposition candidate.

Issues, not non-issues.

It is really is naive to think that voters can be tricked into voting based on subjective character rather than actual issues and fact. Since the smear campaign hasn't been able to prove anything other than its own petty game, don't you think it is time to give up argumenting the unargumentable?

Your amazing and also useless to argue with. Go ahead and ignore the character issues. The majority of people that are not on the left will not. It will be your sides undoing. Be prepared for the sh!t storm that will start later this year.

Anybody who is willing to stay 100 more years in Iraq obviously has different values than I do.

So I'm not votin' for 'em!

That was a deliberate miss quote by Obama. Don't fall for it. It shows that Obama is just as much a politician as anyone else.

You mean be prepared for more smear tactics, to more accurately describe the purposeful evasion of real issues, perhaps. Contrary to your analysis, I could care less than the bandwith I take up correcting your seemingly crass lack of argumentative logic. Remember, apples to apples.

[HAL 9000 96]

Defintely a misquote there, I'd say.

[Heracles 417]

Anybody who is willing to stay 100 more years in Iraq obviously has different values than I do.

So I'm not votin' for 'em!

The statement was a figure of speech. Basically telling the bad guys that we will never back down until the job is done.

On the other hand lets just pack up and leave. Who will be responsible for the blood bath then.

[Mags 112]

I was watching a TV programme about how much the presidential candidates (and hubby or wife) are worth and it was this:

The McCains $40 million

The Clintons - $35 million

The Obamas - $1 million.

I guess I just can't see how someone who is worth $40 million (or $35 million for that fact) can identify with Joe Public. Just my 2cents.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Mags

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was watching a TV programme about how much the presidential candidates (and hubby or wife) are worth and it was this:

The McCains $40 million

The Clintons - $35 million

The Obamas - $1 million.

I guess I just can't see how someone who is worth $40 million (or $35 million for that fact) can identify with Joe Public. Just my 2cents.

It certainly makes the whole "elitism" rationale somewhat redundant.

[HAL 9000 96]

I was watching a TV programme about how much the presidential candidates (and hubby or wife) are worth and it was this:

The McCains $40 million

The Clintons - $35 million

The Obamas - $1 million.

I guess I just can't see how someone who is worth $40 million (or $35 million for that fact) can identify with Joe Public. Just my 2cents.

It certainly makes the whole "elitism" rationale somewhat redundant.

But hey that's more cherrypicking against the character issue.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

wake me up when cindy mccain runs for office, then it's of interest. until then, it's not.

[HAL 9000 96]

waky waky

[Sheriff Uling 3]

wake me up when cindy mccain runs for office, then it's of interest. until then, it's not.

You can tell that she thrives on being the center of attention. I wonder if anyone else gets that impression.