Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

guyser · July 17, 2012

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.

You are lying again. It is kind of silly and you are an embarassment to MLW,but hey stick around, your kind exposes themselves all the time.

Here is the truth, you do not know anyone at all on this earth that is a CEO nor an exec who has no meaningful involvement.

It is elementary that any CEO is directly responsible for the organisations overall health and stability.He cannot escape that . Well I suppose when on holiday and the company burns down. But even then...

So it isnt with any braggadocio that we say you are wrong, it is just that us older folks , who I may add could well have been a CEO or worked with them, know plenty more about the legalities and inner workings of what constitutes a CEO 's job and responsibilities and expectation.

When the milk dries behind your ears in a few years, you will realize how stupid you ...nay foolish you were in parroting such a non-starter. Fact is, no one is backing you up on this. Reason? Cuz they know you are wrong, and judging by your tone and antics, you know it too. But youth is normally reluctant to say sorry. We understand.

When you grow up thinsg will look different.

It's really all well and good, I rather enjoy this.

the fun is over, we have enjoyed this, almost all at your expense mind you, but it is time for you to grow up and realize that you not only dont have the answerts, but you have no real understanding of the question.

Edited July 17, 2012 by guyser

kraychik · July 17, 2012

If you're unwilling to provide information, don't refer to it. It undermines the debate when people try to pass off unsubstantiated information as fact.

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

guyser · July 17, 2012

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

Not that you ever could anyway. :lol:

But anytime you want, refer to them as Harvey. We will understand

kraychik · July 17, 2012

You are lyig again. It is kind of silly and you are an embarassment to MLW,but hey stick around, your kind exposes themselves all the time.

Here is the truth, you do not know anyone at all on this earth that is a CEO nor an exec how has no meaningful involvement.

It is elementary that any CEO is directly responsible for the organisations overall health and stability.He cannot escape that . Well I suppose when on holidays and the company burns down. But weven then.

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.

So it isnt with any braggadocio that we say you are wrong, it is just that us older folks here, who I may add could well have been a CEO or worked with them, no plenty more about the legalities and inner workings of what constitutes a CEO 's job and responsibilities and expectation.
When the milk dries behind your ears in a few years, you will realize how stupid you ...nay foolish you were in parroting such a non-starter. Fact is, no one is backing you up on this. Reason? Cuz they know you are wrong, and judging by your tone and antics, you know it too. But youth is normally reluctant to say sorry. We understand.

When you grow up thinsg will look different.

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.

the fun is over, we have enjoyed this, almost all at your expense mind you, but it is time for you to grow up and realize that you not only dont have the answerts, but you have no real understanding of the question.

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?

kraychik · July 17, 2012

Not that you ever could anyway.

But anytime you want, refer to them as Harvey. We will understand

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

Edited July 17, 2012 by kraychik

guyser · July 17, 2012

Son, dont bring in issues that I have not discusssed,it only cheapens your already tawdry posts,

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.

Have I ever said 'meaningful'? No

They are , no matter what, responsible. Something that eludes you.

You're not just calling me a liar,

Yes I am ! See, how dumb is that?

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

No I am not.

Keep up buttercup.

How old am I?

Quite young I imagine.

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.

I just thought of something, you may be as old as me. If so.....yikes, how does one make it this long being so foolish?

Of course, because in guyser's world, all CEOs and executives are, without exception, actively involvedLIABLE in the affairs of their respective organisations.

Now that it is corrected, it is now factual.

BTW, factcheck.org called and asked two things.

1)Retract your erroneous assumptions

2)swiftboat we have already de-bunked.

I told them I doubt either one will pick up the ball. Both have so far ignored repeated calls to do so.

Edited July 17, 2012 by guyser

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

Guess what, little charities and non-profits and small-businesses have CEOs and executives, too! Take a moment to let that sink in

Of course there are. And all of them have responsibility for their organization. Take a moment to let that sink in

guyser · July 17, 2012

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

Ok...sinking sinking further....more sinking and .......voila!

The same rules apply to small businesses as big business.

Woot!

Massive ignorance on display. How....cute.

Shady · July 17, 2012

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." - Obama, August 2008

Couldn't have said it better myself Mr. President! :lol:

Edited July 17, 2012 by Shady

guyser · July 17, 2012

Couldn't have said it better myself Mr. President!

Still ignoring the question eh Shady?

tsk tsk

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

Couldn't have said it better myself Mr. President!

It's true that Romney is running pretty far from his record as governor of Massachusetts. Your honesty is refreshing.

Edited July 17, 2012 by BubberMiley

kraychik · July 17, 2012

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.

Let me tell you a little secret ....The CEO is the lead guy, there is no one higher than he is. The CEO is the top decision maker.

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?

kraychik · July 17, 2012

Of course there are. And all of them have responsibility for their organization. Take a moment to let that sink in

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.

guyser · July 17, 2012

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.

Go for 21, still be as wrong as ever

kraychik · July 17, 2012

Go for 21, still be as wrong as ever

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.

Edited July 17, 2012 by kraychik

kraychik · July 17, 2012

In John King's own words after the 2:30 mark in the video, "they (the Romney campaign) say that he (Romney) left in February 1999, but it took almost two years to have the new management team put in place and that they are required by law until that new team is in place to list Mitt Romney. Is there any evidence, Anderson, that he had a hands-on role? No. I today have either spoken or communicated by email with four current or former Bain officials, three of these four are Democrats, two of them are active supporters of Obama in campaig n 2012. They were all there at the time. They say Mitt Romney left in a hurry in February 1999 to take over the Olympics, and he was never involved after that to their knowledge. Not at any meetings, not signing any documents, not involved in any deals. Again, three of these four are Democrats, they say what the Obama campaign is saying isn't true."

John King quotes one of the former Bain Capital executives, "Steve Pagliuca (a current Bain official) says the Boston Globe report and what the Obama campaign is saying now is simply untrue. Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics. He was had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm, or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."

From David Gergen (a leftist supporter of Obama):

"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."

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?

Edited July 17, 2012 by kraychik

Argus · July 17, 2012

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.

I do? An interesting suggestion. Can you back it up?

You're the one telling us that a certain category of worker should be protected at the expense of everyone else.

I am? Where did I say that?

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.

I've made that suggestion? Where? Maybe instead of making stuff up you could try and improve your reading and comprehension skills and respond to what I actually said rather than what you imagine I said.

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.

Do you imagine the 1950s was a time where America was ruled by Marxism? Because mostly what I've suggested is returning to a taxation system which was in place then.

Your entire Marxist narrative

In response do your moronic and continued misuse of the term I intend to respond hereafter by framing my response in kind. I'm sure you won't mind.

he 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.

Untrue. I'm merely pointing out that your Fascist beliefs in destroying all worker rights in the name of wealthy oligarchs is actually detrimental to the average citizen. Further, you suggest that outsourcing to other countries is actually being done for 'efficiencies' when in truth it's merely being done because workers in those countries are very cheap. The problem with this 'efficiency' is that virtually any job can be done more cheaply elsewhere. The end result to a society is the disappearance of jobs and the inability of the citizenry to afford the byproducts of that production. Ultimately that results int he disappearance of the jobs overseas as well, harming everyone.

Not that causing harm would disturb you given your rigid adherence to Fascist political kant.

You're picking and choosing losers, rather than allowing the market to operate organically.

The market doesn't operate organically. Free Markets need restrictions or else collusion winds up destroying competitive forces. Price fixing sets in, and the few benefit while the many suffer.

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.

You have this habit of bragging about jobs you haven't done. I wonder if this comes from Adolph Hitler's swaggering mentality and his tendency, as well as that of other high ranking Nazis, to brag about their imaginary accomplishments.

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

I think most of us have assumed something along those lines. Though mom's basement is a more popular choice.

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.

On the contrary, your opposition to logical and pragmatic restraints on business is evidence of your Fascist belief in the need for large organizations to operate in the interests of the state and at the expense of the workers. The problem is that despite what the ignorant might believe, the Nazis actually weren't very efficient at all, not in war, and not business or industry.

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.

Not at all. I merely question your belief in the need to ignore the welfare of everyone else in the interests of a Fascist collection of high powered elites.

This narrative if your foundation for desiring broad interventions from the government into the economy, abrogating individual economic freedom

Your opposition to pragmatic economic intervention by the state is clearly rooted in Fascist theories regarding the closeness of business interests to the state, and the need to crush dissent or individual interests, including unions and other workers rights organization.

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.

History is fairly clear. I realize that the Fascist tendency to redraw history and 'deny' the outcomes of previous historical behaviour patterns is designed to hide the outcomes of governmental structures which adopted fascist policies, but those of us who can actually read have seen enough to dismiss the deniers like you.

Absurd. The richest Americans pay more taxes than the richest Canadians.

That's nonsense, of course. You don't know anything about the American tax system or you're simply parroting whatever fascist talk radio type you've most recently listened to.

"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.

The one has no relationship with the other. On the other hand, the fact that the top tax rate used to be 92% in 1952 is undeniable. It's now 35%. However, even that 35%, as people like Warren Buffet have demonstrated (not to mention Mitt Romney) can be slashed far lower, to the mid teens, by application of certain loopholes and tax measured which mostly help the wealthy. Are you even old enough to realize that the low taxation on dividends and capital gains is not historical but modern?

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.

Nonsense, you only think you have because of your narrow-focused fascist ideological framework which blinds you to the reality that in reality you're about as successful as a monkey in a zoo - the subject of pointing fingers and giggles.

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.

The Fascist and racist sympathies and supporters of the Republican Party are well known and not really the subject of serious argument by any but fascists and their oligarch masters.

Of course you are in favour of higher taxation, you're a leftist.

Ronald Reagan increased taxes, so I guess Ronald Reagan was a letist.

Argus · July 17, 2012

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?

Since you're a proponent of this argument perhaps you could address the question in post 46 that Shady keeps running from.

kraychik · July 17, 2012

Since you're a proponent of this argument perhaps you could address the question in post 46 that Shady keeps running from.

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.

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

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.

Don't forget. Alternately, he could have misrepresented himself as CEO on the SEC forms and accepted a salary of at least $100,000 for doing nothing.

Maybe he should try retroactively retiring from his governorship so he can avoid responsibility for Romneycare.

(Don't worry. I won't ask you to answer the question in post #46. I know that's far beyond your terms of reference.)

Edited July 17, 2012 by BubberMiley

Shady · July 17, 2012

Do you imagine the 1950s was a time where America was ruled by Marxism? Because mostly what I've suggested is returning to a taxation system which was in place then.

That's insane.

Shady · July 17, 2012

Don't forget. Alternately, he could have misrepresented himself as CEO on the SEC forms and accepted a salary of at least $100,000 for doing nothing.

More lies. Even the Obama campaign has backtracked from the wingnut felon argument. :lol:

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

More lies.

Can't answer the question in post #46, eh?

At least you learned today that "prior to" means "before."

Edited July 17, 2012 by BubberMiley

Shady · July 17, 2012

Can't answer the question in post #46, eh?

What am I suppose to answer?

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

Just one question for you Shady.

when his opponent challenged his residency qualifications to be the Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney swore under oath to the Massachusetts Election Commission that he did have an ongoing relationship with Bain management, and several of its portfolio companies, including Staples, Marriot, and LifeLike.

As, this morning's Boston Globe details declarations by his lawyer, and Romney's use of these same exact declarations of his sole stock ownership, being chairmen of the board, president, and receiving an "executive" salary of over $100,000 a year, (not dividends) to convince the election commission that he was still a Massachusetts resident.

Which truth are we supposed to believe now, Romney?

What lie do you want me to believe. This lie or that lie? Maybe they are both lies. They both can't be the truth so what is it Shady?