That is correct. some of the info is misleading or false on its own merit.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Which is partly the point. If both candidates have "flip flopped" as you say, what is the distinction? Is it merely that ones latest position du jour is conservative?

Foreign student financial aid was available......did I say that?

As a private university, Harvard has one of the most generous scholarship programs for those fortunate enough to be admitted.

So, everyone but Obama's wealth is understandable and not suspect in any way. Yeah. That makes sense. Other than the color of the man's skin, is there anything about him that's not suspect in your mind? Or do you figure he probably darkened himself up, too?
I'm not sure what you mean about "goods and services he has accumalated[sic]". Maybe if you cut and paste some of those authoritative emails you get it'll make more sense.
His estimated net worth is easy to look up and while he's wealthy, is fairly modest as rich folks go in this country. Much of it comes from book sales. The depth of your hatred is what's suspect as far as I'm concerned.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

Well first off I never said that both candidates have flip flopped! You're saying I did but there is no basis in fact to support that.

You attempted to raise a question as to whether potential Romney supports should be concerned about what you have characterised as inconsistent positions. You do so in a manner that seeks to define the willingness(good) or unwillingness(bad) of those potential supporters to agree with your premise.

By my post I simply pointed out that Obama supporters face the somewhat similar but not identical same dilemma, yet you've elected to not mention that comparable circumstance. You make no attempt to examine or question the willingness or unwillingness of Obama supporters to be concerned about not simply the percieved inconsistancies of talked about policy positions (the case with Romney) but in the case of Obama it is inconsistances with his actual policy implimentations. Obama has actually done different than what he has stated, where as Romney has as of yet only stated he would or wouldn't do something and also in the perception of some stated the opposite.

Romney as talked inconsistantly and Obama has acted inconsistantly and you seek to make an issue about what Romney is saying and if his potential supporters give that the import you feel it should have for them. All the while you ignore the inconsistancy of Obama's actions and raise no question or concern about whether potential Obama supporters give the similar import and you have elected not express, imply, or question if they should.

Your construct of an equivilancy between Romney flip-flops and Obama flip-flops depends entirely on your ommitting the fact that Romney has engaged in flip flop talk and Obama has engaged in flip flop action.

To respond to your second question. I'm of the opinion that potenial supporters probably evaluate the import along two basis lines, the overall degree of importantance a particular "inconstitancy" should have i.e., big important issue vs. little insignificant issue. Then a second line of evaluation would be the direction that any "inconsistancy" appears to signal, i.e. a newly conflicting position that trends towards conservative positions may engender support from potential Romney supporters who view that as a "coming around to us" signal, likewise supporters on some other tangent of the same spectrum might view it as "going to far astray".

It does seem rather interesting that when it has become almost universally understood and accepted that politicians of any stripe are amorphous in their stated positions dependent on many factors you would seek to hold your idelogical adversaries to a standard you have not held you fellow travelers to, prima facia evidence of partisan intent I would argue. But you may disagree! The excersise on it's face seems to me to be rather sophomoric.

Is that your long way of saying "maybe?"

His typical white folk Grandma was a Hawaiian gov't worker said to be worth a few bucks.

obama is kind of a sell out. but getting excited about romney? please!

maybe his abuse of his fellow students in prep school impresses some folks?

another child of privilege and wealth who wants to be president. kind of like a kennedy.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

She wasn't a gov't. worker. At least not in Hawaii. She worked for the Bank of Hawaii. (ooooh, conspiracy time) His private school tuition while he lived with them was paid with scholarships.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

2.6 million in 2011. Someone should do some fact checking.

Mitt Romney taxes show 'very high' charitable giving tied to Mormon church - CSMonitor.com

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I read this article. My math says 3.1 million. But, what's 500,000 here or there. The point is, yeah it's not 4 million, but it's out of Obama's, Biden's, and my level of giving to others. What does that say about someone?

Surely nothing bad can be said about someone's charitable giving of this level.

How's that Evelyn Wood Speed Reading Course working out for you?

Why do you only mention the 2.6 million he gave to his church and don't mention any 2011 charitable contributions? Are you only interested in certain facts rather that all the facts?

From the source you've provided:

"On Tuesday, when he released his income tax returns, Mr. Romney, a multimillionaire and presidential candidate, revealed that while he reported he made $42.5 million over the past two years, he also gave away $7 million.
While Romney is not thought of as a great philanthropist, his rate of giving is considered high. For example, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million or 14 percent of his income to charity. A typical person gives 2 to 3 percent of their income. And people who made $10 million or more typically gave 6.5 percent to charity, according to Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

So class let's see if we can figure out how much Mitt gave to charity in 2011!

Money donated to charity in 2010 &2011 = 7,000,000
Money donated to charity in 2010 = 2,900,000
Money donated to charity in 2011 4,100,000

Very good kiddies Mitt Romney donated at least Four Million One Hundred Thousand of all the dollars he earned in the year 2011!

But we all know there are some people who don't do their research, who don't bother to check if they have all the facts, who can't figure out what the articles they read actually say, and who can't do seven place subtraction can easily misrepresent the facts about how much of the money he earned Mitt Romney willingly gave away to others, but those folks who can't research, check facts, understand articles they claim to read, and can't even do seven place subtraction like you kiddies can; can't change the facts! No kiddies they can not! And that is an undisputable fact!


PS It is interesting how the Christian Science Monitor portrays and characterises Mitt Romney's charity and charitable giving!

While Romney is not thought of as a great philanthropist, his rate of giving is considered high.

A typical person gives 2 to 3 percent of their income. And people who made $10 million or more typically gave 6.5 percent to charity, according to Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

“Romney’s rate is very high,” says Mr. Williams.

Romney who over the last two years donated 7 million dollars 16.47% of the money he earned "is not thought of as a great philanthropist"as declared by the CSM! Did the CSM poll people about who the great philanthropists are, what level of giving determines great philanthropy, or some other objective determination or did they take a vote at the office, maybe the writer or the editor decided Mitt's "not thought of as"?

Based on the available facts in the article Mitt donated $4.1 million in 2011!

The article is either obtuse or deceptive as the never give a 2011 amount and never list all the 2011 contributions! Prejudice against Mormans or Republicans or White Heterosexuals Males or all three?

I've layed it out in greater detail for the liberals, in the preceding post!

well it sure beats the hell out of what oblama gave and bidens the cheapest sum***** on the planet.