PolitiFact says you need evidence to make claims about Mitt's tax returns

[ProSense]

PolitiFact says you need evidence to make claims about Mitt's tax returns

by Jed Lewison

LOL:

We find no evidence for Reid's claim that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. Pants on Fire! http://t.co/Bsa9j8CT
— @politifact via TweetDeck

Yeah, okay, fine. Of course the allegations by Harry Reid's source are unproven. That's because Mitt Romney refuses to release his tax returns. Duh! But if you're going to say Harry Reid's pants are on fire for making claims about Mitt Romney's taxes, then doesn't Romney deserve the same treatment?
Just last week, Romney told ABC News that he's paid a "very substantial amount" in taxes every year—at least "so far as [he] can recall." But despite his claim, Romney refuses to release any evidence to support it—and unlike Reid, he's got the evidence at his fingertips.

In the same interview, Romney said he'd be happy to go back and look at his returns to see if he'd ever paid less than 13.9 percent, but if he did go back and look, he hasn't told anyone about it. He's released zero evidence to back up his claim.

Bottom-line: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Harry Reid's pants are on fire, so are Mitt Romney's. And the difference is, Mitt Romney is the one running for president. He's the one who has got to answer the questions. Not the honey badger.

...PANTS ON FIRE!

Fact check: @Politifact puts quotes around my paraphrasing of David Miller. Only last sent is direct quote. http://t.co/jqFIxyTA
— @aseitzwald via TweetDeck

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/06/1117375/-PolitiFact-says-you-need-evidence-to-make-claims-about-Mitt-s-tax-returns

Looks like "Operation defend rich tax cheats" is in full effect.




Dear CNN, you have got to be joking: Republicans point to Axelrod as Reid-Romney feud deepens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002

"Talking about a rich person's taxes, though—that's just too damn much."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021083606

[Fumesucker]

1. We have given you (little) people enough information..

[Scuba]

2. Yep, if Harry's claim is "pants on fire" then so is Mitt's.

But Politiflawed can't be expected to get there.

[Enrique]

3. Harry Reid don't care n/t

[phantom power]

4. is that like how you need evidence to accuse Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim Socialist?

with a fake birth certificate?

Or how you need evidence that John Kerry didn't really earn his purple heart?

Or how you need evidence that the Clintons left a trail of bodies behind them, and trashed the White House?

[DJ13]

5. Several of these "fact" sites are exposing themselves as rightwing fronts this election

I think its called blowing their cover as they desperately try to keep the GOP from collapsing.

[LiberalFighter]

6. PolitiFact pants are on fire.

The burden is on Romney to prove 1) he isn't lying, 2) has paid taxes every year, 3) has not failed to report all income, 4) is not receiving any income from any Bain entities.

[CJCRANE]

7. True/False/Not Given.

Reid's claim is neither true nor false, it's simply "not given" because we have no information on the topic.

It's up to Romney to provide the information that shows whether Reid's allegation is true or false.

[enki23]

8. Reminds me of countless debates about religion

If there's no way to know for certain, then anything might be true, therefore you have warrant to believe anything that is logically and internally consistent about the subject. (See: Plantinga, other wankers et. al.) especially so long as the proper function of belief being worked in you would be to increase belief in truth, so long as its object were true (sounds convoluted, because it is. and stupid. See: evolutionary argument against naturalism, etc.).

Anyway, it's perfectly reasonable and logically probable that Romney's taxes contain some very embarrassing things for his presidential run. I've got warrant! Further, the proper function of hiding his tax returns would be in order to hide embarrassing things they contain. (Okay, so proper function is turned around a bit here, but I think it works at least as well, if not better).

Of course, unlike religion (or exactly like a religion, if it were true) there is at least one person who could easily clear up all the questions. And just like any given religion, the alleged principal isn't talking. I guess Romney moves in mysterious ways (his wonders to perform).

I have faith that he's a fraud. Who are these bigoted assholes to question my faith?