Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'm still not following. What's the supposed lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'm still not following. What's the supposed lie? I thought that was an unusually coherent post by punked, but I guess if up till now you thought "prior" meant "after", we shouldn't expect much from your reading comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I thought that was an unusually coherent post by punked, but I guess if up till now you thought "prior" meant "after", we shouldn't expect much from your reading comprehension. Ok then. Let me know when you figure out what the issue is you think should be addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'll spell it out for you. He declared under sworn testimony that he was CEO of Bain between 1999 and 2002 to prove his residency in Massachusetts. Now he's denying he really was CEO of Bain. Do you require any more help with your reading? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I'm still not following. What's the supposed lie? Romney says that he hasn't had anything to do with Bain since 1999. You insist that must be right and that those SEC filings were just paperwork that hadn't been updated. Yet when his residency was challenged back in 2002 when he was running for governor, he used his relationship with Bain to prove his residency. It turns out that in June of 2002, Mitt Romney testified before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in order to prove that he met residency requirements to run for governor. During that testimony, Romney said that while he was working on the Olympics, he served on three corporate boards of directors. And yes, you guessed it, two of those companies were affiliated with Bain: Staples and LifeLike, a doll manufacturer in which Bain held a stake. Bain, a private equity firm, held a stake in the LifeLike Co. until the end of 2001, including during the period in which Romney claimed to have no business involvement with Bain entities. Bain had heavily invested in LifeLike, a company that Romney identified personally as an opportunity, in 1996 and sold its shares in late 2001. His involvement with LifeLike contradicts his assertion that he had no involvement with Bain business. His testimony is supported by his 2001 Massachusetts State Ethics Commission filing, in which he lists himself as a member of LifeLike's board So despite Romneyland's claim that he had nothing to do with any Bain entity after February of 1999, Romney clearly did. Moreover, the notion that Romney would sit on LifeLike's board and would have nothing to do with Bain's decision to sell its shares in 2001 defies credulity. Daily Kos Edited July 17, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Thought you guys would like how Rich this is. The ads, which started airing yesterday, feature testimonials from former workers at GST Steel and Ampad, companies bought by [Romney]'s former firm, Bain Capital. The ads accuse Romney of laying off workers and denying them health benefits. Romney, speaking at a City Year volunteer event in Dorchester, said he had no role in those decisions. He said he was on leave from Bain Capital, running for the US Senate in 1994, when the company acquired Ampad. And at the time of the GST Steel layoffs, he said, he was on leave again, organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics. From February 1999 until now, Romney said, he had "no association" with Bain Capital. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/same-excuse-different-election.html How convenient. Edited July 18, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'll spell it out for you. He declared under sworn testimony that he was CEO of Bain between 1999 and 2002 to prove his residency in Massachusetts. That's completely incorrect. As is your pathetic partisan link claiming that Bain made it's millions by "shipping jobs overseas." Again, a huge lie. Wow, you guys are getting pretty desperate now. Now he's denying he really was CEO of Bain. Do you require any more help with your reading? Yes, he resigned as CEO in 1999. Romney says that he hasn't had anything to do with Bain since 1999. No, that's also not true. But seriously, you're linking to the DailyKos? Come'on man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 And yes, you guessed it, two of those companies were affiliated with Bain: Staples and LifeLike, a doll manufacturer in which Bain held a stake I also see the goalposts have moved. Now it's working on three corporate boards with companies AFFILIATED with Bain. Just more meaningless distractions from the failure in chiefs record as President. Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Thought you guys would like how Rich this is. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/same-excuse-different-election.html How convenient. It's good to see that Andrew Sullivan is no longer obsessed with whether Trig is actually Sarah Palin's baby. He had fostered a premise that she pretended to have the baby to protect her daughter. That it was really her daughter's downsyndrome child. Andrew Sullivan and DailyKos links. Wow, you guys are pulling out the big guns huh? Maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time with actual news sources, like the Washington Post, CNN, and FactCheck.Org. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Still no answer to support Romney's contradiction, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time with actual news sources, like the Washington Post, CNN, and FactCheck.Org. It's interesting that you're reading Factcheck.org now and concede it's a reputable source. What do you think of their finding that Obama's spending increases are based on policies that were already in place when he took office? http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Weird edit sorry. Edited July 18, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) It's good to see that Andrew Sullivan is no longer obsessed with whether Trig is actually Sarah Palin's baby. He had fostered a premise that she pretended to have the baby to protect her daughter. That it was really her daughter's downsyndrome child. Andrew Sullivan and DailyKos links. Wow, you guys are pulling out the big guns huh? Maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time with actual news sources, like the Washington Post, CNN, and FactCheck.Org. Here you go Shady same quote from the Boston Globes archives. The ads, which started airing yesterday, feature testimonials from former workers at GST Steel and Ampad, companies bought by [ROMNEY]'s former firm, Bain Capital. The ads accuse Romney of laying off workers and denying them health benefits. Romney, speaking at a City Year volunteer event in Dorchester, said he had no role in those decisions. He said he was on leave from Bain Capital, running for the US Senate in 1994, when the company acquired Ampad. And at the time of the GST Steel layoffs, he said, he was on leave again, organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics. From February 1999 until now, Romney said, he had "no association" with Bain Capital. A real news source so Shady can ignore it and pretend this post doesn't exist. I know I know the Boston Globe build a time machine and retroactively changed that story in 2002 to make it look like Romney uses that excuse (because that is all it is) whenever he is in trouble for things HIS COMPANY did. Liberal bastards. You look sillier and sillier every post. Edited July 18, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Still no answer to support Romney's contradiction, eh? Nope he doesn't care that Romney lied either in 2002 to get on the ballot or that he is lying now. In Shadys world both statements can be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Yes, I understand all that. What I don't understand is how it relates to us taking things from Communist and Marxist ideologies. Same question. How does this relate to us taking things from Communism and Marxism, which was your original statement. The elimination of private property is a communist plank as is the distribution of wealth. That is simplistically put, perhaps for sound bytes, and is a generality. I think the point is that without society you cannot succeed, and you therefore have a responsibility to help maintain and give back to that society. In that sense, others might 'share' in your success in that you are capable of giving back more to society. What is society then? In my view it is the mutual and co-operative interaction of individuals for their mutual benefit. From that definition then all you are saying is that some individuals need to be forced, taxed and/or bullied into sharing their success which makes it entirely not co-operative and unfair. Their success means that others in their interaction and mutual co-operation have already shared in each others success and thus society is formed. Those that have not shared in it have not interacted at all and deserve no share. There was a little red hen and one day she decided to grow some wheat......remember that story? Besides the rich contribute a lot to charitable work in society on their own. Maybe you can enlighten me with your concept of what society is? I think you are taking the idea past where he intended. We all know perfectly well who is more responsible and who is less responsible, nor has anyone suggested we should all benefit 'equally'. No one is saying, for example, that Bill Gates' wealth should all be redistributed and his assets sold for the common good while he lives in a rowhouse. The government is eroding the concept of private property - and they are doing an excellent job under Obama, by the way - more. You just illustrated the danger with your call to have those who have succeeded give back to society? How much more should they give back? How is that calculated? You may not think they exist but some believe Bill Gates should be living in a rowhouse. Once again, no one has said any such thing. No one is suggesting that all of a person's success is because of society. That's clearly not the case. Society allows people to flourish, but it's largely due to their own efforts. Some flourish, some don't. I have flourished, economically, of late. And I attribute that to my own hard work, my own skill and talent, and my own imagination. However, all of that would have availed me little without the background of society which enabled me to market my work and enabled others to make use of it and pay for it. The earlier generation's mutual cooperation and interaction created wealth and a structure for the next generation. Some people actively helped you build your business and those that purchased your product found benefit from it or you wuold not be successful. Did you pay those people that helped you? Did some overcharge you, in your view? Did anyone offer to do something for free? Do you feel society has benefited from your product, or whatever you are offering, and will continue to do so? IOn light of that how much do you consider it will be necessary to give back to society? After taxes of course. That's all nonsense. But at the same time we do need to recognize that capitalism as a motive for business does not include anything but profit. That means whatever a business can do which makes profits, it should do. Capitalism is neither moral, nor immoral. It is amoral. That's why we need regulations and laws to reign in unrestrained capitalism. See today's testimony in Washington where HSBC will apologize for laundering drug money. Many people have this concept of capitalism. But Capitalism must contain a sense of morality if it truly is Capitalism. A business will not survive long if it's prime concern is not offering the consumer what he wants. Of course, to do so he must make a profit or it is not worth the effort. And really, you cite a bank for laundering money. As if Banks are some kind of Capitalist venture. They are heavily regulated cartels. Besides that there have always been scoundrels and regulations tend to hide them rather than expose them - check out recent Wall street collapse. You have fixed on an idea and stretched it out of all recognition. You need to shed a little of that libertarianism and adopt more pragmatism. Libertarianism, if anything, is pragmatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 The elimination of private property is a communist plank as is the distribution of wealth.Like the tax lien auctions Argus posted about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 New Ad, seems very much like Shady in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh great. A presidential candidate that can't even manage his own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh great. A presidential candidate that can't even manage his own money. Hahaha now you are just baiting Shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's insane. Why? How come America worked so well with a top tax rate of 92% back then, but now, if the tax rate is raised beyond 35% the entire economy will collapse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Hahaha now you are just baiting Shady. Hook! Apparently that's completely acceptable on this forum now. Edited July 18, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted July 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Hook! Apparently that's completely acceptable on this forum now. Perhaps you should send a message to Charles Anthony and request that criticism of ideology (especially leftism) be prohibited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted July 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Still no answer to support Romney's contradiction, eh? There is no contradiction, all of this was addressing in my very first post. CNN, The Washington Post, Factcheck.org, Breitbart.com, and many other websites have already labelled this narrative and its parrots, which includes you, Argus, guyser, and punked as liars. I've explained in detail that one can have a legal and/or financial relationship with a firm while not contributing and "operational input" (to borrow a phrase used by the Washington Post), even with an executive position as the CEO. It's hilarious to watch you and the other leftists continue to dig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted July 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's insane. In case you haven't already noticed, Argus subscribes to Marxist narratives of class struggle. The guy is openly calling for a 92% tax rate on a certain tier of earner, "the rich". It doesn't really get more leftist than that. He is a far leftist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) There is no contradiction, all of this was addressing in my very first post. CNN, The Washington Post, Factcheck.org, Breitbart.com, and many other websites have already labelled this narrative and its parrots, which includes you, Argus, guyser, and punked as liars. I've explained in detail that one can have a legal and/or financial relationship with a firm while not contributing and "operational input" (to borrow a phrase used by the Washington Post), even with an executive position as the CEO. It's hilarious to watch you and the other leftists continue to dig. Can one tell a court he was in board meetings for Bain, then 8 years later pretend they never made those statements? Sure they can because one is a lair which is what is going on here. Question in 2002 did Romney or didn't Romney say he had a business relationship with Bain from 1999-2002 that included being brought back to Mass to go to board meetings to get on the Mass ballot. Easy answer did he swear to a court about that. Yes or no? Thanks. One of those states either today or 8 years ago is a lie. So you pick which one. Edited July 18, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.