kraychik

He didn't just kill someone, he murdered someone. And he likely murdered others we'll never know about. He also committed treason and engaged in other war crimes.

Oswald was a communist. Thank you for exposing the ignorance of the left.

Translation - You're a leftist who actually believes that Romney was actively involved with the management of Bain Capital after his departure in February of 1999 because he retained the title of CEO until just before 2002. Thank you for exposing the left's commitment to dishonesty.

If you really wanted to be honest, you'd show me a video of a bunch of kids singing the praises of Romney. Honouring the founding fathers is hardly cult-like, sick, or demented as we can all see in the video I posted on the first page of this thread. It was creepy, but they were not singing the praises of Bush as these kids were singing the praises of Obama. It was creepy, no question, what we saw with the life-size cut-out, but it's still not at the same level of the kids singing the talking points of the Obama campaign. I imagine you lack the honesty to recognise this distinction. There were and still are many videos of kids singing creepy Obama songs, this is hardly an isolated incident. It's a symptom of something deeper, which is the left's affinity for raising its leaders to god-like status. My point is simple, that this follow-the-leader mentality is far more endemic to the left than the right, due to core ideological underpinnings among leftists that express a contempt for what they perceive as the "everyman" and their desire for a messiah-character to direct them towards greatness. You need to believe in the "great leader" theory in order to be a leftist and be comfortable with the centralisation of control in the hands of the government, because only a god among men can possibly be so knowledgeable, intelligent, and benevolent to be able to outthink the wisdom of millions of freely-associating individuals making decisions in real-time. This worshipping that the left engages in is what allows them to believe in this fantasy of Mr. 57 states being so unbelievably smart. And it's why Beyonce is about to faint when she simply thinks of her goddess Michelle Obama. Yes, I am right.

This is true, as the standards for English are lower than the standards for French in the federal service. More importantly, Francophones enjoy a natural advantage in the sense that it is much easier for them to learn English due to a sort of cultural osmosis. In most circumstances, they have great access to English and there is more pressure on them to do so, whereas Anglophones have to go more out of their way to learn French, and there's less pressure on them to learn French in order to be successful. Also important is the discrimination against non-Francophone families when it comes to enrolling children in French schools. Unless one of the parents is a Francophone, parents cannot enrol their children in a French school in order to have the best opportunity to learn French. There are French immersion options for such parents who make a decision to prioritise the learning of French for their children, but it's not nearly the same quality of education and immersion in French as a French-speaking school. It should also be noted, though, that French schools are protecting a certain quality of its student body by implementing these standards. The proficiency in French of its students would likely diminish somewhat if they began to accept students with no French background (without any French parents), and this could have an adverse effect on the quality of French education for the rest of the children. Of course, this same standard isn't applied to English schools. English schools have plenty of non-English speaking kids whose parents have come from non-English speaking countries. So there are several double-standards at play in Canada which offer advantages to the Francophones with respect to protecting the integrity of their language instruction in schools, as well as preferential practises that favour Francophones when it comes to hiring in the federal service.

One of many examples of Factcheck.org's dismantling of this myth I've address that the Obama campaign is hoping the ignorant will swallow whole: "And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management." Had enough, guyser, or are you a glutton for punishment?

So now you've reverted back to your original false contention and away from your red herring/strawman argument, which is that all CEOs and executives in all organisations, without exception, are actively involved in the management and decision-making of their respective organisations. So David Gergen and John King from CNN (as well as The Washington Post, Factcheck.org, Breitbart.com, and others) are lying and stupid. The Bain Capital officials spoken to who confirmed Romney's description of his departure are also lying and stupid. Thank you for exposing the left.

Well, it depends on the nature of business. My simple point is that there are many circumstances which occur when CEOs and other executives aren't actively involved with their respective organisations. I've said this about twenty times, and it's pretty obvious. Although you seem to want to dispute this, which I appreciate. I like getting the left to expose itself, if you haven't already noticed.

Ah, so your entire series of posts in this thread has been a strawman about the responsibility (or your perception of liability) of a CEO and other executives towards an organisation, rather than actually addressing what has been clearly stated by me time and again in this thread, that Romney wasn't actively involved in decision-making with Bain Capital after his departure in February of 1999 while retaining the position of CEO until just before 2002, contrary to the narrative of Obama and his campaign. Since I can't resist exposing your ever-changing narrative, let's examine your earlier posts. Doesn't look like you're talking about liability there. You're clearly trying to imply that there's no way that Romney retained the title of CEO while not being actively involved in the decision-making of Bain Capital. What this reveals is that you don't realise that there are circumstances where CEOs and other executives actually have no meaningful involvement with their respective organisations. This is the basic truth you're contesting, a basic truth that I've encountered in my own life, and a bsic truth about Romney's departure from Bain Capital that has been confirmed by CNN, factcheck.org, The Washington Post, Breitbart.com, and other media outlets. Once this was revealed, you shifted gears and started talking about (your perceptions) of liability and responsibility, although this was never in dispute and never mentioned. In other words, once you got embarrassed, you went off on a tangent to save face. Strawmen arguments are fun, aren't they? Here's a simple question for you leftists, is the Obama campaign misrepresenting Romney's departure from Bain Capital in February of 1999 by implying that he had meaningful involvement with Bain Capital even though he stated he left while retaining the title of CEO?

What's really funny here is that you clearly don't want to believe me because you think every CEO must be a megarich head of some massive multinational corporation. Guess what, little charities and non-profits and small-businesses have CEOs and executives, too! Take a moment to let that sink in

Thank you for quadrupling down on the lie and revealing your subscription to the myth that all CEOs and executives have meaningful involvement with their respective organisations. You're not just calling me a liar, you're calling CNN's John King and David Gergen liars. I guess they're too young and too stupid to know that Romney must've had meaningful involvement with the operations of Bain Capital even after he left in February of 2009 while technically remaining the CEO. I guess those folk over at the leftist Washington Post are also idiots, since "everybody knows" that all CEOs and executives are actively involved in their respective organisations. Perhaps you should release a YouTube video and explain to us how factcheck.org also doesn't understand that Romney, as CEO, must've been making decisions about Bain Capital's operations after he left in February 2008. How old am I? You keep talking about my age and me needing to grow up. Could it be that your need to try and make this personal and your endless insults are an expression of frustration and the tactics of a desperate leftist whose entire argument boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong and a liar!"? It's fun for me to see how upset you get when you try to engage me and quadruple-down on falsehoods. Of course, because in guyser's world, all CEOs and executives are, without exception, actively involved in the affairs of their respective organisations. How do we know this to be true? Well, you said so of course. I guess I must've imagined people I've met who dispel this myth, just as CNN, The Washington Post, factcheck.org, and Breitbart.com are all stupid enough to believe that this is what occurred when Romney left Bain Capital in February of 1999 while retaining the title of CEO. If only they all could've spoken to you first, right?

I don't need to prove anything to you about people I know, what they do or what they've done.

Well, I've cited more than necessary in this thread. I've probably made about ten cites confirming my central point. If you're asking for references to people I know personally, I'll take a pass before sharing personal information with someone like you.

I anticipated this response. I assumed that leftists would tell themselves that the right deserves it. That the right is more ogre-ish, rude, and less refined, and therefore deserving of increasing scrutiny on this board. Unfortunately, the truth doesn't really bear this narrative out, considering the Pew research study cited in this thread. The truth is I don't need a Pew research study to know that animosity towards dissenting points of view, as well as a general contempt for freedom of speech and expression is far more prevalent among the left than the right. It's the nature of the left's ideological leanings, with contempt for the individual and glorification of the collective. It's also demonstrably true with historical analysis, examples include the suppression of such freedoms in leftist tyrannies like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Iran. Even in the West, the overwhelming majority of political movements towards curbing these core freedoms have come from the left, for example the fairness doctrine, hate-speech regulation in the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977, and the CRTC. The left makes no secret of its lack of respect for these core freedoms, either in the political world or the ordinary day-to-day world in which we live. It's also demonstrably true right here in this forum.

What are you talking about? The girl is singing an Obama song, extending the praises of "changing" and "rearranging" America in the world in front of an Obama campaign poster in her home, the video then shows a bunch of kids wearing Obama campaign t-shirts with the signs, "hope", "imagine", and "change" in what appears to be a classroom adorned with Obama campaign imagery. They then devolve into a demented "Yes, we can!" acappella. There is a huge difference between the creepy video I posted and the one you posted. The kids in the Jesus camp weren't singing the praises of Bush and making him central to some chant for self-indoctrination for the purposes of advancing his campaign. This had absolutely nothing to do with President's Day or Black History Month and everything to do with the indoctrination of children into singing the praises of the dear leader. You're just blatantly lying as if we don't know any better. Try actually watching the video before replying, next time. You'll fare better.

Yes, the distinction between "overwhelmingly" and "all" is incredibly significant in the context of this conversation. Congratulations. Let me revert to my original analysis, the proportion of those banned from this forum have been almost all right-leaning, which tells us one of two things: either the administration of this website is leftist, or the leftists on the forum are far more aggressive in their attempts to silence conservatives via complaints sent to the administration. I think the truth is actually a combination of these two things.

I would perhaps be ignorant like you and guyser on this fact if I didn't know the people that I know, and I would also subscribe to the myth that all CEOs and executives of all organisations have meaningful involvement with their respective organisations. Unforunately for you and guyser, however, I do know the people that I know, and have the benefit of knowing people that hold executive positions in organisations with which they have no meaningful involvement. I understand that you don't want to believe me, because then you'll have to admit that you're speaking from a position of ignorance and that the myth you subscribe to of all CEOs and executives being involved in the day-to-day decisions of organisations depends on you telling yourself that I'm lying. Even more unfortunately for you, however, is the fact that what I'm saying is being confirmed by various media outlets, such as CNN, the Washington Post, factcheck.org, Breitbart.com, and others. Romney was officially the CEO of Bain Capital until about 2002, but he really left in February 1999. You can't accept this simple fact because, well, you're committed to your narrative and don't value honesty. It's really all well and good, I rather enjoy this. Watching leftists like you and guyser continually expose yourselves (politically speaking) entertains me. Both of you clearly cannot be honest, and that's fine. That's why I'm here, of course.

The good news is that it's backfiring on Obama, and he's burning through his money and political capital with no success.

Wow, you nailed me. From all the folks that were banned from Mapleleafweb that I came across when looking through old posts, two were from the left, and about ten or more were on the right. Very impressive.

I've explained in detail the ideological core of the left that leaves it far more vulnerable to a follow-the-leader type of mentality than the right, and this sort of activity is far more prevalent among the left. It does happen on the right, as well, but far less often.

So now the story is irrelevant? Throughout this thread you'd been supporting the lie and false innuendo from the Obama campaign, and now all of a sudden you're onboard with American Woman who isn't surprised that the Obama campaign is lying? Nice contradiction. Tell us more about CEOs are always actively involved in the management of organisations they head in the world you live in.

For the twentieth time, that's already been addressed. People can and do hold executive positions with organisations with which they have no direct involvement or meaningful role in decision-making. I know several people like this. Romney is telling the truth, while the Obama campaign is lying, but failing in yielding the support of anyone except the hard left, like yourself. After this expenditure of money and political capital, David Rhodam Gergen (as he is affectionately described as by Rush Limbaugh) conceded that the needle hadn't moved among independents as a consequence of this attack campaign from the Obama team. Americans aren't buying these lies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze2O60bO42g Fast forward to the four minute mark to get to Gergen's dismantling of the deceitful innuendo from the Obama campaign. "The burden is on the Obama people to prove this. Factcheck.org today, which is a respected organisation said they stood by their reporting that Romney had no active engagement with Bain Capital after February 1999. I would point out that that report by Facecheck.org was co-written by Brooks Jackson who used be a very very good investigative reporter for CNN." Also from Gergen: "The Obama campaign is now playing a very rough form of politics, and is that really what we were promised way back when? "

That is creepy, but that's a loss less of a glorification of Bush as a deity and much more of well wishing tempered with the principle of "One Nation Under God". When it comes to the left, and in this case with respect to Obama, it's one nation under the benevolent rule of the most greatest amazaingest smartest awesomest man ever!

The SEC isn't contradicting anything that's been said by Romney or his former (Democratic) co-executives at Bain Capital. Indeed, the SEC filings confirm Romney's story.

That question has been answered, by me, several times in detail. You're clinging to the myth that all CEOs of all organisations are necessarily active in the decision-making made by the executives of the organisation. I understand that ignorance can lead one to subscribe to this myth, but I addressed it on the very first page of this thread.