Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

According to Bain officials, some of whom are Democrats, he had no day to day involvement in the companies business after 1999.

Then why did you say "prior to 1999" and imply that I hadn't read anything when I pointed it out to you?

But if that's the case, why did he sign SEC documents as CEO until 2002? Are these just standard fraudulent practices among GOP candidates?

kraychik · July 17, 2012

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.

I shattered the lie that BubberMiley is trying to parrot in my opening post. He's just digging his own hole ever deeper as he continues with his one-liner posts.

I just looked at the previous ten posts from BubberMiley to confirm his pattern of content-free posts. His past ten posts have been ten words or less. He just sits on the sidelines and makes irrelevant comments in threads. It reminds me of children at the dinner table when adults are having a discussion, and the child feels left out because he or she can't participate meaningfully in the discussion about mortgages and interest rates. So what does the child do in order to get attention? Well, he or she starts ju,ping up and down and shouting, of course! That is what BubberMiley is on Mapleleafweb, the child at the edge of the table proudly proclaiming that he can tie his own shoes and begging for an adult to witness this magnificent feat. There are a few of these types on every discussion forum.

kraychik · July 17, 2012

why did he sign SEC documents as CEO until 2002? Are these just standard fraudulent practices among GOP candidates?

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.

July 17, 2012

o.m.g. The Obama campaign has been caught lying? Say it isn't true! Even if it is! I don't think any other political party or candidate in the history of the world has ever been caught - or accused of - lying! The horror! :blink:

In other news, the Left sucks.

(I'd say that pretty much covers it.....)

punked · July 17, 2012

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.

I'll take the world of the SEC over "Bain Officials" any day.

Edited July 17, 2012 by punked

kraychik · July 17, 2012

I'll take the world of the SEC over "Bain Officials" any day.

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.

guyser · July 17, 2012

Wow, righties** do lie....apparently a lot!

Lets see

From factcheck.org:

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

Never said he did.

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.

Another lie. Whats with you?

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..

And another lie for good measure.

Cant wait for school to start, all these little kids.

** Sincere apologies to those on the right who obviously are not this way, in fact except for these two, none are deserving of the moniker

Edited July 17, 2012 by guyser

punked · July 17, 2012

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.

Must be how he will govern as president to right. "It isn't my fault because I am not active in decision making". He had the title he gets the blame. It is not one fault but Romney's he didn't do his due diligence and either get his name off the filings OR actually take a role in the company he was the CEO of. I am sorry if you think "I wasn't at the meeting" is a good enough excuse for the president. I don't.

punked · July 17, 2012

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.

They confirm he was the CEO. That is all I need to know that he was responsible.

guyser · July 17, 2012

They confirm he was the CEO. That is all I need to know that he was responsible.

By law (SEC perhaps?) he had to be until a replacement was annouced.

These righties arguing with themselves have no idea about responsibility , especially vicarious liability.

Shady · July 17, 2012

Must be how he will govern as president to right. "It isn't my fault because I am not active in decision making". He had the title he gets the blame. It is not one fault but Romney's he didn't do his due diligence and either get his name off the filings OR actually take a role in the company he was the CEO of. I am sorry if you think "I wasn't at the meeting" is a good enough excuse for the president. I don't.

Yep, kinda like Obama. Nothing's ever his fault. According to him, the only mistake he's made as president is not telling a good enough story. Btw, when is he going to release his college transcript? Why did he have them sealed? Why is he the only president to ever do that? What is he hiding?

guyser · July 17, 2012

o.m.g. The Obama campaign has been caught lying? Say it isn't true! Even if it is! I don't think any other political party or candidate in the history of the world has ever been caught - or accused of - lying! The horror!

In other news, the Left sucks.

(I'd say that pretty much covers it.....)

Pretty much!

punked · July 17, 2012

By law (SEC perhaps?) he had to be until a replacement was annouced.

These righties arguing with themselves have no idea about responsibility , especially vicarious liability.

Yep just as if Obama loses in November he will be responsible for everything that happens from that day until the end of Jan when Mitt is sworn in. That is how the world works. You have the title you get the responsibility even if you are to lazy to find someone else until 3 years later. You don't get to just retroactively say "I don't want those decisions that were made on my watch to effect me in the future". That isn't the way the world works.

kraychik · July 17, 2012

They confirm he was the CEO. That is all I need to know that he was responsible.

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? "

Edited July 17, 2012 by kraychik

kraychik · July 17, 2012

Pretty much!

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.

Shady · July 17, 2012

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.

The whole story is pretty irrelevant. It's just an Obama orchestrated distraction away from his record as president.

kraychik · July 17, 2012

The whole story is pretty irrelevant. It's just an Obama orchestrated distraction away from his record as president.

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

July 17, 2012

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?

Sorry my post went over your head. Waaaaaaaaaaaay over your head, apparently. :lol:

guyser · July 17, 2012

I know several people like this.

Not personally you dont...of course.

I know millions like this, cuz I read the internets !

Woo hoo!

guyser · July 17, 2012

So now the story is irrelevant?

Not for me, nor did I say it was.

I assure you, your relevance is questioned with each and every untruth you post, and my little friend, thats a lot of BS posts.

Kraychik....is that esperanza for Pinocchio ?

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.

More lies . Yikes, I am embarassed for you

As AW just posted....stand up because it did go over your head.

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

I know several people like this.

No, you don't. There is no such thing as a CEO with no responsibility in an organization. That's just remedial lying. Once you get more experience, you'll realize how silly it sounds. :lol:

kraychik · July 17, 2012

No, you don't. There is no such thing as a CEO with no responsibility in an organization. That's just remedial lying. Once you get more experience, you'll realize how silly it sounds.

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.

BubberMiley · 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.

The first rule of Internet posting is to cite your proof. If you can't do that, your words amount to nothing.

kraychik · July 17, 2012

The first rule of Internet posting is to cite your proof. If you can't do that, your words amount to nothing.

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.

Edited July 17, 2012 by kraychik

BubberMiley · July 17, 2012

If you're asking for references to people I know personally, I'll take a pass before sharing personal information with someone like you.

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.

Edited July 17, 2012 by BubberMiley