It is possible, however, that Mr. Rommey could still deduct the unclaimed amount of his charitable donations in future tax years, experts said.

pacino wrote:

cshort wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So Mitt gives a lot of money away and pays a lot of taxes and has paid a lot of taxes every year.

Now we can go back to distracting issues like whether Americans needlessly died in Libya.

If Mitt wins, a lot more Americans will be dying needlessly, not that it matters to someone who supports the party of war and poisonous water and air.

And I forgot about the 24,000 who die from our use of coal. Better support that industry with our tax money, especially since we get over half a million asthma attacks per year on top of the deaths. Now those are results!!

Cars kill 40,000 people a year - better get rid of them too. Horses aren't as dangerous - only 20 people a year die from horse related injuries. We should probably kill Ann Romney's horse though, just in case.

There are much better options than coal. Coal sucks the life out of Appalachia.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not generate faster economic growth, according to a new report. But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

A study from the Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research office for Congress -- shows that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth.

td11 wrote:Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
Mitt Romney's doctor's letter says his resting heart rate is in the 40s.

motherfucking lance armstrong level shit

td11 wrote:

But those cuts may widen the income gap between the rich and the rest, according to a new report.

cshort wrote:

td11 wrote:Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
Mitt Romney's doctor's letter says his resting heart rate is in the 40s.

#$!&@ lance armstrong level #$!&@

Mitt's been doping

traderdave wrote:

cshort wrote:

td11 wrote:Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
Mitt Romney's doctor's letter says his resting heart rate is in the 40s.

#$!&@ lance armstrong level #$!&@

Mitt's been doping

Well he does hang out with Paul Ryan a lot.

traderdave wrote:I am not a fan of Scott Brown but I am with JH on this. Warren gamed the system and she is getting called on it. It goes to the integrity of the candidate. Now I am not saying this would keep me from voting for her vs. Brown but people wanted to make a federal case out of Ryan lying about a marathon time; this Warren thing is cut from the same clothe.

td11 wrote:Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
Mitt Romney's doctor's letter says his resting heart rate is in the 40s.

#$!&@ lance armstrong level #$!&@

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

traderdave wrote:I am not a fan of Scott Brown but I am with JH on this. Warren gamed the system and she is getting called on it. It goes to the integrity of the candidate. Now I am not saying this would keep me from voting for her vs. Brown but people wanted to make a federal case out of Ryan lying about a marathon time; this Warren thing is cut from the same clothe.

I think there's a clear distinction between using your (alleged) family history to your advantage and flat-out lying. I'm a runner, so the marathon time thing pisses me off, and I'll admit that it's somewhat silly and irrational, but true nonetheless. Runners don't lie about their times, period. Nor do they "forget" by more than an hour the only time they ran a marathon. I might not have my half-marathon PR down to the precise second, but I could give you a very close ballpark figure off the top of my head (1:33). Again though, it matters more to runners than it would to the masses.

But OTOH I will say that the thing that should bother non-runners more about it was how freaking unnecessary it was for him to lie about it. I mean, he didn't just lie about the time--he made it sound like he had run many. 99% of the listening audience (all 200 of them) would've been like "he ran a marathon--that's awesome!" Probably 95% wouldn't even have the slightest idea if 4 hours was a really good time or not.

If he's willing to casually lie about something so stupid, why can we trust him on other things?

Eddie Jordan wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

traderdave wrote:I am not a fan of Scott Brown but I am with JH on this. Warren gamed the system and she is getting called on it. It goes to the integrity of the candidate. Now I am not saying this would keep me from voting for her vs. Brown but people wanted to make a federal case out of Ryan lying about a marathon time; this Warren thing is cut from the same clothe.

I think there's a clear distinction between using your (alleged) family history to your advantage and flat-out lying. I'm a runner, so the marathon time thing pisses me off, and I'll admit that it's somewhat silly and irrational, but true nonetheless. Runners don't lie about their times, period. Nor do they "forget" by more than an hour the only time they ran a marathon. I might not have my half-marathon PR down to the precise second, but I could give you a very close ballpark figure off the top of my head (1:33). Again though, it matters more to runners than it would to the masses.

But OTOH I will say that the thing that should bother non-runners more about it was how freaking unnecessary it was for him to lie about it. I mean, he didn't just lie about the time--he made it sound like he had run many. 99% of the listening audience (all 200 of them) would've been like "he ran a marathon--that's awesome!" Probably 95% wouldn't even have the slightest idea if 4 hours was a really good time or not.

If he's willing to casually lie about something so stupid, why can we trust him on other things?

She lied to gain an advantage, it's wrong, but you can at least see her motive. Paul Ryan lied for no reason,it had no real benefit, bizarre stuff.

Eddie Jordan wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

traderdave wrote:I am not a fan of Scott Brown but I am with JH on this. Warren gamed the system and she is getting called on it. It goes to the integrity of the candidate. Now I am not saying this would keep me from voting for her vs. Brown but people wanted to make a federal case out of Ryan lying about a marathon time; this Warren thing is cut from the same clothe.

I think there's a clear distinction between using your (alleged) family history to your advantage and flat-out lying. I'm a runner, so the marathon time thing pisses me off, and I'll admit that it's somewhat silly and irrational, but true nonetheless. Runners don't lie about their times, period. Nor do they "forget" by more than an hour the only time they ran a marathon. I might not have my half-marathon PR down to the precise second, but I could give you a very close ballpark figure off the top of my head (1:33). Again though, it matters more to runners than it would to the masses.

But OTOH I will say that the thing that should bother non-runners more about it was how freaking unnecessary it was for him to lie about it. I mean, he didn't just lie about the time--he made it sound like he had run many. 99% of the listening audience (all 200 of them) would've been like "he ran a marathon--that's awesome!" Probably 95% wouldn't even have the slightest idea if 4 hours was a really good time or not.

If he's willing to casually lie about something so stupid, why can we trust him on other things?

She lied to gain an advantage, it's wrong, but you can at least see her motive. Paul Ryan lied for no reason,it had no real benefit, bizarre stuff.