# Off-topic content. Click to see this comments.POLITICAL HUMOR: why Romney is hiding his tax returns



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Keep this light and simple. I think this could be an interesting topic to follow. No hardcore politics or other silliness.


----------



## wizzardofwood (Jul 18, 2010)

so why bring up any political anything on a wood working site lets keep it a woodworking site and not a bs venue


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## pashley (Mar 22, 2008)

I worry less about Romney's money - which he earned legally and ethically - than i do about a president that has not been able to revive this economy and wants to take my money and give it to others.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

pashley:
"wants to take my money and give it to others." 
This money goes to society, not to others. Since you are part of society it is a win, win situation.


----------



## pashley (Mar 22, 2008)

Meaning what? I'm giving it to the government to give back to me (minus 98%)?


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Two things pashley, first just because he earned it legally doesn't even remotely make it ethical and/or moral. Never confuse ethics with legal as they will frequently miss each other completely. Half of what wall street does is legal, at one time so was buy and selling slaves, legal has nothing to do with ethics.

second, you taxes go to pay for a lot more then others who may or may not actually need it, things like our national defense, infrastructure and paying for all the deadbeats that fill the seats in DC. I find it interesting that you would use the word blessed in your signature, a typically Christian word, while at the same time denigrating those who may need assistance both in this post and in another; a very unchristian act.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

This is more of a philosophical issue - Obama is all about "Spreading it around" 
It is not about infrastructure spending or defense.

This quote from OBama in Roanoke Virgina campaigning on Saturday speaks VOLUMES about what our role is.

"If you've got a business - you didn't build that," Obama told the crowd. "Somebody else made that happen."

President Obama said successful Americans did not become successful on their own - they had help.

"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own," he said. "You didn't get there on your own."

This country has a long history of people making things happen, taking chances and striking off on their own endeavors. The notion that everything you do or find success in is a result of someone elses work is BS


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Sorry Rev. Russ, but I gotta disagree with you. A nations legal system tries to reflect it's ideas of morality and ethics, but will never achieve that goal simply because there are no universal definitions of moral or ethical behavior.

For example, Islamic law has provisions which we find odd - if not completely abhorrent. Who's right? Is a practicing Muslim following a legal code which reflects his ideas of morality and ethics wrong because it doesn't agree with our own? Who makes that decision?

Closer to home, the Catholic church (and several other denominations) have long been opposed to abortion and most forms of birth control. In their view, these are not only immoral and unethical, but are outright sinful and will sentence you to hell for eternity. Many of their followers reject these beliefs while still following the religion. Are they immoral or unethical?

While you are free to make different financial decisions than Romney because his decisions don't fit your standards of morality and ethics, does that right extend to allowing you to condem him because he disagrees?

I'm far from religious, but seem to recall something from the bible about "Judge not, lest you be judged". - lol


----------



## cirvin (Apr 20, 2010)

For all of the people that thinks spreading the wealth is a good idea I have one question. How much of this spreading are you planning on doing? Call me what you want I don't care but if I'm struggling to pay my own bills, how is it a good idea to give some of my hard earned money and give it to someone who is unwilling to put forth an effort to secure their well being?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Cirvin -
The "spread the wealth" advocates assume that they'll be receiving. Their position would take a 180 if they had to give. - lol


----------



## jeepturner (Oct 3, 2010)

The reason he is resisting the release of more of his tax returns is because one of the following, and I will save my best guess for last. 
1. He doesn't want the tax returns turned into a witch hunt, kind of like the Holder grilling where they asked for documents and them poured over them trying to find the smoking gun proving that there was some kind of conspiracy, and opening up more and more questions and further demands for more documents. 
2. He knows there is something in them that could cause him votes because its shows that he omitted or lied about something that could be criminal. Something that John McCain's campaign found when they were vetting him for VP consideration.
3.(My Favorite)He doesn't want the Mormon church to know what he made, because they know how much he gave to them and what the percentage should be.

If he can't be open and honest with the American public about this, for what ever reason, then how could you trust his administration to be open or honest.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

*Well said Mel ..
I thought of the *Mormon* avenue myself*
..
3.(My Favorite)He doesn't want the Mormon church to know what he made, because they know how much he gave to them and what the percentage should be.
...


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

DrDirt -
Yes, he made those statements, but you need to put them in context. As much as I hate to admit it, he was largely correct. Almost every successful person in recent history can (or should) attribute some of their success to the existence of a system that provided a lot of "hidden" support for their enterprise.

Without the internet, USPS, Fed Ex, UPS, etc, Jeff Bezos would be a nobody and we would never have heard of Amazon. Without the "no sales taxes" provisions for internet companies in almost every state, he might have made it, but probably nowhere as much as he has.

Without the USAF developing a distributed command and control system for their ICBM's in the mid-60s, the internet might not have been developed and all the internet based gazillionaires would have been forced to find more traditional jobs.

What I heard Obama say was that "nobody does it alone" - and he's right.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Sawkerf, you make very good points and what is moral and ethical does change over time and even within nations and so there are no direct lines for what is moral or ethical that is true. However I would argue that our legal system actually has very little concern for what is moral and ethical, I believe it has slowly transformed from a justice to a legal system; while justice tries to keep an eye on morals and ethics legal doesn't always feel the need to. In addition while our courts may have bestowed a basic form of personhood upon corporations that doesn't mean that corporations even remotely concern themselves with morals or ethics particularly if they get in the way of the bottom line. Our history is filled with companies that spent a lot of time skirting the law, circumventing it, or outright ignoring it in the name of the almighty dollar. So while he may have legally obtained his money it doesn't mean that he ethically obtained it. Finally I would point out that I never actually condemned him for the money he earned, I just pointed out that just cause he earned it doesn't mean that he ethically earned it, only that he legally earned it I hope.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## joebloe (Feb 13, 2012)

the reason is it's none of your business


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Tee heee Dan - I like post 16

It is my biggest worry about Mitt, he doesn't have ANY charisma… I really wonder how he won as a Repub in massachusetts.
Obama largely won in08 by running against Bush…. and saying we need a NEW path.
Now there are 4 years of the new path… which hasn't been so rosy, and the blame bush and what he inherited excuse, wears a little thin at the end of his first term.

Sawkerf - the problem i have is having listened to the whole speech… the message is that Big Government is the key. that Nobody will be successful without more government spending.

Not so much how interconnected we are.
Sure Jeff Bezos' also owes his success to how his parents raised him too.
Obama feels that we are only as successful as the government enables us to be, and I think most success is in spite of governments best efforts to squelch initiative.


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

~Never Under Estimate the Stupidity of the General Public~


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

DrDirt-
I was only agreeing with Obama in the most technical sense. He's right that nobody truly does it alone. Everyone builds on whatever exists when they start.

I think that you're definitely right about his belief that the government should be so much a part of everything. He seems like a very decent man with the very best intentions. I suspect that if I knew him I could easily think of him as a friend. Unfortunately, his career as a "community organizer" seems to have convinced him that all good things need government involvement - and the best things need the greatest involvement.

My belief is that government needs to set the boundaries to ensure a reasonably level playing field, then get outta the way. Sorta like the officials in a football game. Keep the game under control, but let them play football.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't take a crap alone. There's the porcelain company, the paper company, the water company, all coming together to support my efforts. It's a weak argument. Capitalists don't do anything alone? It doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Lousy analogy, Bertha. Without those "supports", you could still crap, but it would be on the ground and you would use leaves (or something) to clean yourself. Your waste would stay where ever you left it.

With them, you're able to crap in much more comfort and the cleanup is much more effecient - and the waste is carried away. Your "successful" crap is successful because of the support functions invented and supplied by others. You're only involvement was to pay for them.

Nice try, though. - lol


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^it was intentionally lousy, Sawkerf. I just liked the "support" part of the analogy, lol. Is it really a stroke of genius to note that successful businesses in a capitalist society don't become so without support? C'mon, guys. Is this even worth talking about?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

And where else but a place like this could we make a valid connection between taking a dump and building a successful business. (Laughing my arse off right now.)

Let's elect Obama to LJ's straight man.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*derosa,*

I agree with you on ethical and legal! Just because something is legal does not make it ethical.

*So many seem to gloss (I used a woodworking term here since it is LJ) over that fact to justify their position and/or behaviour!*


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

novice -
By whose definition? Since there are no universally accepted definitions for morality or ethics, we're stuck with our own - very objective - definitions.

I maintain that legal behavior* is *ethical behavior. In as few words as possible, tell me why you're right and I'm wrong.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Sawkerf,

I could write and essay on this topic as I have two legal eagle in the family! Instead I will point you to a answer on Yahoo Answers:

Yahoo Answers

*As it is NOT an essay and it summarizes my points precisely and exactly!*


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Interesting read but nothing compelling there. Some of the examples even support the subjectiveness of moral and ethical actions with respect to the law.

You basically evaded my question so I remain unconvinced. I see no reason to believe that you're right and I'm wrong.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

You are as always correct that morals and ethics are subjective. For personal review rely on the following basic questions, 
1. If I do this will it be legal? Note, either answer can still result in a moral choice. 
If illegal will it somehow cause harm to others, then most likely not moral.
If illegal will it work to the greater good of the society- actual chance of it being moral. ie- the underground railroad was trafficking stolen goods but was still moral and ethical. As was helping the resistance movement in occupied France also illegal but even the Germans would now concede was moral and ethical, see legal and ethical don't have to align. 
If legal you're starting off on solid footing but don't assume moral or ethical.
2. If legal what will it do to others?
Do I know that this action will cause pain, injury, harm, or seriously inconvenience others? Probably not moral or ethical. Think fracking in residential areas, yes the gas is nice but knowing it destroys the local water supply and may destabilize the region for the short term sake of money should tell you something. Similarly soldiers who are "only following orders" aren't necessarily being moral or ethical; you can argue this with the courts in Nuremberg if you disagree. 
Would my personal actions piss me off or be considered a great injustice to myself if done to me by others, chance of a moral issue here. It should at least get you to stop and ask if your otherwise legal action is moral.

Beyond this I could explain it further but as you choose not to understand and seem to lack an indepth understanding of what morals and ethics truly are you'll have to live with your own shortsighted views. 
More succinctly, I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## JR45 (Jan 26, 2012)

Is this anything to do with woodworking?


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Rev -
You can explain them (and do a good job of it) within the context of your personal belief system. Since there are no universally accepted standards, however, each of us has to decide for ourselves where we stand - and we have every right to do so.

Since I'm far from god-like, I'm perfectly willing to accept that others will make different decisions, but draw the line when they presume to impose those beliefs on me. I don't ask that you "understand" my beliefs, but I do insist that you respect my right to have them - and not insult me by saying that I don't "understand".

A couple of off the wall scenarios on your two questions:

1. If I choose to not make a right turn at a red light (a legal act, but not required) and my choice causes someone behind me to be late for something (i.e. be harmed), is my legal choice immoral or unethical?

2. If I run a red light at 2:00 am when there is no other vehicle, or person, in sight, is this illegal act ethical or moral - even though no one was harmed?


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

JR45 - No, but who cares!


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

well said chipmunk


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Sawkerf, your first question is not really a truly valid one. It is neither unethical or immoral because you can have no knowledge of the situation for the person in front of you therefore their being late has no role in the equation unless you are fully aware of their situation. So that in this scenario the question of harm, ie. their being late, isn't actually a question. You may choose not to make the turn because it doesn't seem right to do, nothing ethically or morally wrong there or simply because you don't feel like it also not morally or ethically questionable. You may choose to make the turn which is perfectly but legal and ethically or morally ambiguous based upon the traffic patterns. If you will cut someone off or directly change the flow of traffic then it is an issue, non-issue if their is no other traffic within the distance that you would be an interference. 
To the second question the answer on the surface is that it is probably not ethical to do. As a part of accepting your license you agreed to adhere to the rules of the road to the best of your ability, should your ability fall below a certain point then you of course lose your license. In this case is there any reason for the running of the light other then your own personal selfishness, if not then you committed an unjustifiable act which isn't moral. If you're doing it because there is someone in need of medical care and running the light will cause no harm to others while benefiting the other person then it is justifiable and probably the moral thing to do. Similarly the need to get someplace such as a fireman responding to a scene in their personal vehicle has greater moral reason for their actions.

My only issue all along is the fact that you presume that morals and ethics have to be correct if it is legal, this mentality is exactly what spurred on those who stood in support of institutional slavery, jim crow laws, women's rights, and the current oppression of civil rights for LGBT. It is also the reason I use ambiguous terms for discussing morals and ethics; things such as possible, potential, probably or may be. It may not even always be possible to act in a moral or ethical manner, but to suppose that all laws are moral and ethical is to never question the validity of the laws, to never act on what is perceived by you to be moral or ethical even in counter to the law is to deny who you are and what you believe. Christians don't even share the same morals and ethics, evangelicals and fundamentalists often claim things that make me shake my head and wonder what book they're reading, I'm sure I do the same to them. You are entitled to whatever ethics or morals you have, it's just important to never lose sight of the fact that morals and ethics, personal, sociological, et al should be constantly examined, tested and adjusted if necessary.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

lots of good cartoons out there … how you enjoy them half as much as I do sharing them.

...


----------



## pcott (Jul 7, 2009)

I'm a Christian, and if I was an American, there is no way in hell (bad pun intended) I would vote for Romney, specifically because of his "socially conservative" policies. Same reason I didn't vote for Harper here in Canada.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------

