Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

[guyser]

What about his record at Bain? You mean the one Bill Clinton called stellar a few weeks ago?

Factcheck called again, they wondered if you replied. I said No, he's run away again.

Funny, they said 'typical' and hung up.

[punked]

What about his record at Bain? You mean the one Bill Clinton called stellar a few weeks ago?

People are more interested in Obama's record as Prsident. His terrible record. The one he doesn't want to have to talk about.

People keep trying to to talk to Romney about Bain and he keeps not talking. If his record is so great why doesn't he talk about it Shady. Again Romney needs to run on something.

[Shady]

The one he's trying to distance himself from by claiming he "retroactively retired."

He wasn't apart of the decision making at Bain prior to 99. His record at Bain is stellar. Even Bill Clinton admits that. Bain created 10 times more jobs than were lost. Obama's never created a job in his life, let alone had one in the private sector. That's why he doesn't wanna talk about his terrible record.

Obama said pass hIs stimulus to keep unemployment from going above 8%. It's been above 8% for over 40 straight months.

Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Its stayed over a trillion dollars every year.

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes, particularly on the middle class. Obamacare has 7 new taxes in it, and was upheld by the supreme court as a tax. That all hit the middle class and small business the hardest

With an abhorrent record like that, is it any wonder he wants to distract from real issues Of course not, but people like you fall for the bait.

[guyser]

He wasn't apart of the decision making at Bain prior to 99.

Factcheck just called about the above.

They want to know, was he Janitor? Maybe the doorman? Before they hung up, they laid out a couple of "s

[kraychik]

To the individual, probably not much. To the economy, quite a bit.

You're actually the one that wants to use the power of the government to encroach on the economy to benefit the few against the many. You're the one telling us that a certain category of worker should be protected at the expense of everyone else. In other words, in order to protect certain types of jobs that are becoming unjustifiable due to more efficient options, such as outsourcing to cheaper labour markets or technological innovation, you want to punish the entire market by driving up costs through government prohibition on these measures. You whine about "the worker" whose job is at risk due to one reason or another, and want to inflict higher prices one everyone else as a consequence of that whining. Macroeconomics is on my side, not yours.

I wish you would stop making bold declarations about ideology when you clearly don't have more than a basic grasp about what those ideologies entail. What I stated was that what was good for business, or what business wants is not necessarily good for workers. This is absolutely undeniable.

Which workers? Like I said you want to punish everyone in order to protect a select group whose jobs are at risk due to insufficiencies. Your entire Marxist narrative about class struggle (owners vs. workers, bourgeois vs. proletariat, however you want to phrase it) is entirely false. The broader swathe of society is served by allowing people to associate freely and determine how they conduct their transactions. You want to protect certain workers, for example automobile manufacturing labourers in Ottawa, while punishing the rest of the workers in other industries with higher prices on cars. You're picking and choosing losers, rather than allowing the market to operate organically. Although I find it entertaining to dismantle the ignorant narratives of the economic illiterates (like yourself, cybercoma, bleeding heart, and other leftists), it is combined with an ample mount of depression over the pervasiveness of this ignorance in our societies.

Do tell? And where did you study economics? I took is as a series of electives because it was easy and didn't involve much work beyond the mathematical formulas.

What I'm talking about is actually high-school level economics. For all you know, I may be a high-school dropout on welfare.

The government is required to manage certain economic interests and to regulate business. When it fails you get the 2008 Lehman disaster which almost plunged the world into depression. You also get mass sickness from poorly handled food, lead in children's toys, and clothing that bursts into flames. Not to mention collusion and price fixing among business, false statements and unsafe use of drugs, and predatory lending activities, unsafe dumping of chemicals, and explosions in oil drilling rigs.

I agree with the first sentence, but your definition of "certain economic interests" and the type of regulation that should be implemented on business is rooted in Marxism. As you've already demonstrated many times in this thread, your entire attitude towards economics isn't grounded in any basic understanding of free market economics, but rather a Marxist view of an eternal struggle between the haves and the have-nots. This narrative if your foundation for desiring broad interventions from the government into the economy, abrogating individual economic freedom

You've ignored my statement about class warfare predating Marx. Why? No answer for it. I will admit my statement was imprecise. I should not say "the media" make that claim. Rather, various mouthpieces make that claim through the media, and as with Goebbels, endless repetition seems to have had some effect. Nevertheless, no one seems able to explain how other nations with far higher taxes (and entitlements) seem to be functioning with considerable economic and social success.

It's not relevant when you think class warfare began, what is relevant is that you and other leftists subscribe to this false narrative of economics, history, and politics. A consequence of this foundation of your worldview is that you believe the "elite media" serves the interests of "the capitalist class". This is the false narrative of socialists like bleeding heart, and you're right in the boat with him.

American's tax system is riven with loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthy to avoid taxation

Absurd. The richest Americans pay more taxes than the richest Canadians. America's tax system is more progressive than Canada's, actually. In layman's terms, that means that the top whatever-percent (let's say ten percent, for fun) pay a bigger portion of total tax revenues collected by the government than their equivalents in Canada. "Tax loopholes for the rich" is a leftist talking point which is the opposite of the truth, especially considering that over one half of Americans pay no income tax, whatsoever. It is the lower income earners that have no skin in the game, but according to your fantasies, it's the rich that are getting away with not shouldering their loads.

Now I myself have decried the fact that so many don't pay taxes on the other end of the spectrum as well. That is do to well-intentioned (but often counter-productive) liberal social engineering. Nevertheless, the fixation of the Republican Party (bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations) has, for the last twenty five years, been lowering taxes for the rich. And statistics have shown this has resulted in a growing income inequality and a plummeting social mobility.

No. I think "the market" is just another one of the many subjects of which you are nearly entirely ignorant.

It actually IS about the worker, and doing what's best for the worker. A nation exists to benefit its people, not its corporate entities. Governmental action ought to be designed with that in mind. Unfortunately, the Republican Party operates on the reverse principal, since most of them seem to be whores eager to sell themselves to whatever corporate lobby group promises them a fat payout after their political career ends.

Again, this is you revealing your Marxist narrative. The owner-class against the worker-class. It's not even worth addressing at this point as I've completely destroyed your "economic" argumentation. Ironically, of course, the Democratic party receives the largest share of money from the biggest "heavy hitters" according to opensecrets.org. Don't let reality get in the way of your leftist narrative of the Republican party being the party of the evil greedy and exploitative bourgeois.

By the way, I'm in favour of increases in the taxes for ALL, not merely the wealthy. I think the corporations should have their loopholes removed, the middle class should pay more, and even the lower middle class, and some of the poor should be paying at least something, as well.

Of course you are in favour of higher taxation, you're a leftist. You want more economic intervention from the government. That was obvious a long time ago.

[Shady]

People keep trying to to talk to Romney about Bain and he keeps not talking. If his record is so great why doesn't he talk about it Shady. Again Romney needs to run on something.

He does talk about it. You just choose not to listen. Staples, The Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, etc. How many companies has Obama created? I'll give you the answer. Zero.

[BubberMiley]

He wasn't apart of the decision making at Bain prior to 99.

Where did you read that?

[punked]

He wasn't apart of the decision making at Bain prior to 99. His record at Bain is stellar. Even Bill Clinton admits that. Bain created 10 times more jobs than were lost. Obama's never created a job in his life, let alone had one in the private sector. That's why he doesn't wanna talk about his terrible record.

Obama said pass hIs stimulus to keep unemployment from going above 8%. It's been above 8% for over 40 straight months.

Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Its stayed over a trillion dollars every year.

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes, particularly on the middle class. Obamacare has 7 new taxes in it, and was upheld by the supreme court as a tax. That all hit the middle class and small business the hardest

With an abhorrent record like that, is it any wonder he wants to distract from real issues Of course not, but people like you fall for the bait.

Yes yes we know you want to talk about Obama Shady. Although Romney has some questions he has to answer. I forget who was second last in Job creation when Romney was governor of Mass? Who sent Jobs over seas as CEO of Bain? What was the model for Obamacare and who was the governor that planned it all out?

Again running as "I'm not Obama" is going to work for Romney was well as "I'm not Bush" worked for Kerry.

[Shady]

Where did you read that?

From the links I posted. Washington Post, CNN. FactCheck. You should try reading them.

[punked]

He does talk about it. You just choose not to listen. Staples, The Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, etc. How many companies has Obama created? I'll give you the answer. Zero.

No I listen I haven't heard him defend one decision that was made at Bain when he was CEO. All I ever hear is "whine whine whine........You can't hold me responsible for decisions made while I was CEO that isn't fair." If he wants to own Bain then he should own Bain and talk about the decisions he made. Much like Obama gets the create for the successes and as you like to point out has to own the failures. So does Mitt for his time at Bain all the way up to 2002 when he was no longer the CEO so stop already.

[punked]

Where did you read that?

He read in all those stories that were printed BEFORE the SEC documents came out that show Romney as the owner and CEO of Bain in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. `

[kraychik]

I'll do what I can to help.

Unfortunately, our society in both Canada and the United States has taken "bits and pieces" from communism and other forms of socialism such as Fascism and have left the populace with little understanding of what politically is occurring. We are stuck with the central bank and a fiat currency and a universal single payer health care system in Canada (soon to be established in the US or some such facsimile), among other things. Most of the populace have some vague idea of communism and fascism as being totalitarian and have some fear of them with liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats in the States, calling each other by these names. The end will come when the State is initiated to wipe out these threats to totalitarianism through totalitarianism. Socialism seems to escape everyone's attention as being an evolutionary process towards the same end, that being the total state. When our politicians don't have a clear concept of socialism they unwittingly grab socialist "bits and pieces" from academics and ideologues whose job it is to aggrandize the State and make the politician feel valuable and popular to his constituents, offering them bread and circuses which they will vote for themselves. These "bits and pieces" eventually add up to total social engineering but few notice or recognize they are heading in that direction. Somehow, although a monetarist more fascist type economic system prevails it is confused as capitalism and kept around to take the blame for society's ills. Another confusing "bit" that is foisted on an economically illiterate public. And the greatest failing of those kept economically ignorant is their inability to relate cause and effect. What necessity is there to do so when government is supposed to right all wrongs that it sees and tells its populace what is necessary for them to correct and/or regulate and keep you safe - you never realize how lucky you are the State is there for you. The thing that politician's don't realize is that their social programs while perhaps initially helpful it eventually expands and becomes economically unmanageable - especially in light of the fact other special interests will be demanding and voting for their entitlements, over time the whole house of cards becomes economically unsustainable. Especially from a productive sector heavily burdened with regulations and taxation expected to pay for all the burgeoning circuses that must "sustained".

Sound money, a free market, private property and a government that does not attempt to manipulate the economy through, granting favour and privilege, keeping the public ignorant of what it is actually doing, controlling wages and prices, inflation and other ills, is the way toward the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of the citizens of a nation.

Hope that didn't muddy up the waters too much. The leftists argument here appears to be a spouting of regurgitated socialist rhetoric that is sold as the social duty of government in any caring-sharing nation, that you have no clue, have no basic grasp of Marxist ideology, are a troll and everyone is having a good laugh.

Thanks for your refreshing point of view.

I highlighted the part I agree with the most. The disadvantage the leftists have, of course, is that they are arguing a lie. The Marxist narrative of eternal class struggle (parroted by Argus, cybercoma, and bleeding heart to name a few) is unsupportable, so they're at a distinct disadvantage. So what do they do? Well, they do all they can. Tell me I'm clueless, I don't understand ideology, conservatism, Marxism, economics, and then accuse me of being "inflammatory" or a troll. I'm used to this desperation from the left. I thrive on it.

[BubberMiley]

From the links I posted. Washington Post, CNN. FactCheck. You should try reading them.

Uh... nowhere does it say that Romney was not involved in decision making at Bain prior to 1999. It says the opposite.

Your reading comprehension is really that bad?

[kraychik]

Ahhhhhhh... This thread is refreshing! I remember a certain candidate being "swift boated" not so long ago, does everyone else remember the right leaning posters being so disgusted by this that they spoke out for that candidate?

The hypocrisy astounds....

Kerry deserved those attacks, he betrayed his fellow soldiers and became a wilful propagandist for the enemy.

[kraychik]

Even if I thought your post had merit--and I think any possible merit is already demolished by your apocalyptic notion of creeping socialism--that you find our resident reactionary screecher and arrogant Cassandra to be "refreshing" is almost as damaging to your thesis as is your "all that is bad is leftist" simplistic "logic."

Since, at bottom, you and kraychik have a roughly one-note critique of a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system, you might want to match the brevity of your thesis with a brevity of style; from now on, simply respond to everything with "the Left! the Left!" It sums it up perfectly, and frees up your time for some anarcho-capitalist pursuits, such as hiring private security firms to keep the dangerous masses out of your gated community.

(ooops...did I say "community?" I mean "contiguous collection of atomized individuals.")

Translation - You're greatly distressed that your little leftist echo-chamber known as Mapleleafweb is now disturbed by my presence. I'm the best thing to have occurred to this forum in years.

I've been here a short time and I've already smashed quite a few leftist illusions and fantasies in here. My ongoing reward is when leftists call for me to be censored and banned.

[kraychik]

I suppose you would find it "a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system". When one first starts driving a car it is complex but as you "progress" it becomes an easier task and perhaps simpler than you initially thought. You just have to go through a learning process. Soon you will be thinking on your own along with the rest of the "contiguous collection of atomized individuals." and may even be able to make a statement of ideas that you as an individual arrive at.

Here are two pieces of information that are inarguable if one cares to look through history: 1. Governments tend, over time, to centralize power. 2. They debase the people's currency. These things happen over time almost inversely proportional to each other.

Well said.

[kraychik]

You don't take "bits and pieces" from Communism. There is no compromise with Communists.

You realise these two things are reconcilable, right? A non-communist (yourself, presumably) can take ideas from Marxism without swallowing the entirety of the ideology and its false historical analysis and economic suggestions. That communists don't compromise, according to you, is not relevant.

They believe that there is a war going on between classes and only a violent Revolution will change that. There is no halfway Communism. This is also why there has never been Communism anywhere on this planet.

What halfway is there with you? You're willing to allow 25% of the economy to be in the hands of private ownership?

The last sentence of yours is something I've heard since primary school. It was untrue then, and it's untrue now. I guess there'll be no "real communism" until you're named dictator for life. In the real world, communism has existed and continues to exist today. And it was and remains very, very, very real.

[BubberMiley]

Your reading comprehension is really that bad?

Apparently so.

[guyser]

What I'm talking about is actually high-school level economics. For all you know, I may be a high-school dropout on welfare.

It would at least explain plenty of your posts.

[guyser]

Uh... nowhere does it say that Romney was not involved in decision making at Bain prior to 1999. It says the opposite.

Your reading comprehension is really that bad?

No, he is just bs'ing...... again.

Romney started the firm years earlier. How that can mean, in Shady talk that is, he didnt make any decisions boggls the mind.

Edited July 17, 2012 by guyser

[guyser]

Kerry deserved those attacks, he betrayed his fellow soldiers and became a wilful propagandist for the enemy.

Factcheck.org called again, they say not only does shady bs about this, they said some guy named kraychik is full of poop on this too.

In your own terminology, do you righties always lie?

Lord this is rich coming from you two.

[Bitsy]

There seems to be a big misunderstanding, as Ed Gillespie give us the facts, Romney retired retroactively.

Retroactive retirement! It was a brilliant formulation, perhaps the greatest addition to the political lexicon since “no controlling legal authority.” And it raised tantalizing possibilities: If Romney can do it, perhaps others can go back in time to rearrange events.

George W. Bush could retroactively end his presidency on Sept. 1, 2008, before the financial collapse. Donald Rumsfeld could retroactively pull out of Iraq before the insurgency. President Obama could retroactively deny government funding for Solyndra.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-romney-and-his-time-machine/2012/07/16/gJQA9MYfpW_story.html?hpid=z2

[Shady]

Uh... nowhere does it say that Romney was not involved in decision making at Bain prior to 1999. It says the opposite.

Your reading comprehension is really that bad?

According to Bain officials, some of whom are Democrats, he had no day to day involvement in the companies business after 1999. But that's why this issue is so ridiculous. It's a he said she said type if thing. In other words, just another distraction by the Obama campaign. Until the next crappy jobs report gets dropped on their hard again at the end of the month.

[kraychik]

Factcheck.org called again, they say not only does shady bs about this, they said some guy named kraychik is full of poop on this too.

In your own terminology, do you righties always lie?

Lord this is rich coming from you two.

From factcheck.org:

"...no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony."

"None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:

Bain Capital, July 12: Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."

I remember earlier in this thread when you embarrassed yourself by stating that being a CEO of an organisation necessarily requires an active role in the management of the organisation, despite me knowing people personally who are executives of various organisation with which they have no practical involvement.

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/

I'm not sure why you would invoke an organisation that shatters the lie you're trying to parrot from the Obama campaign about Romney's time with Bain Capital. I guess it's easier to chase after these phantoms than it is to actually discussing Obama abysmal presidency. Lastly, Romney's record with Bain Capital is one to be proud of, and he should tout it more and more.

[guyser]

It's a he said she said type if thing.

Ah, the old fall back.

Translation: I got caught bs'ing