Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

[kraychik]

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.

You can't even compose coherent posts....

[punked]

You can't even compose coherent posts....

Did Mitt Romney swear to a Judge he was the CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 and flew to Mass. regularly for Bain Board meetings to get on the Mass Ballot? It is easy. Stop Dancing around the issue and answer my question. Did he write a statement and swear that to a judge?

Edited July 18, 2012 by punked

[kraychik]

It doesn't matter what he swore to a judge, we've already established that Romney held the position of CEO with Bain Capital until just before 2002. The question you should be asking is whether or not the Obama campaign narrative of Romney having active managerial or decision-making involvement with the firm is false. Many media outlets have already confirmed this narrative to be false, and I explained why it is false in the very first post of this thread. Romney left Bain Capital in February of 1999 in order to pursue management (and saving) of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and retained the title of CEO for legal purposes until he could be replaced.

It's not I who is dancing.

[kraychik]

If this thread is any indication of popular sentiment, and it probably isn't considering the majority of posters here are from Canada and massively ignorant of the American political landscape, the Romney should be glad that Obama's best tool at this point is a demonstrably false narrative of Romney having been with Bain Capital when it was involved in restructuring troubled businesses and implemented outsourcing.

Even if Romney had been actively involved with Bain Capital until just before 2002 (which he wasn't, of course), it's nothing to apologise for. Outsourcing occurs, and the important question to be asked is what the government and unions have done that forced businesses to relocate their operations overseas. Ironically, Obama is essentially the outsourcer-in-chief, by killing businesses domestically as well as outsourcing stimulus money to chase the magic dragon known as "green jobs" (Dalton McGuinty-esque) in Europe. Obama has shipped billions of dollars in "stimulus money" to Europe.

[punked]

It doesn't matter what he swore to a judge, we've already established that Romney held the position of CEO with Bain Capital until just before 2002. The question you should be asking is whether or not the Obama campaign narrative of Romney having active managerial or decision-making involvement with the firm is false. Many media outlets have already confirmed this narrative to be false, and I explained why it is false in the very first post of this thread. Romney left Bain Capital in February of 1999 in order to pursue management (and saving) of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and retained the title of CEO for legal purposes until he could be replaced.

It's not I who is dancing.

How does Romney lying too a Judge not make him a Liar. I thought we were arguing over if Romney is a lair or not but you freely accept that fact. That is fine. Romney is lair by your own admission. Great moving on. Why should we trust what he is saying now if he lied in the past about his actions at Bain form 1999-2002?

[kraychik]

How does Romney lying too a Judge not make him a Liar. I thought we were arguing over if Romney is a lair or not but you freely accept that fact. That is fine. Romney is lair by your own admission. Great moving on. Why should we trust what he is saying now if he lied in the past about his actions at Bain form 1999-2002?

Romney didn't lie about anything with respect to this fake Bain Capital story from the Obama campaign.

[kraychik]

I think I understand you now, punked. You think that Romney's departure from Bain Capital is incompatible with his retention of the title of CEO? Is that it? I guess you suffer from the same problems as guyser. I've explained this in great detail, many times, and I feel no need to revisit it. There's really only so much I can do to try and help you folks, here. I can open the door, but you need to walk through it.

[punked]

I think I understand you now, punked. You think that Romney's departure from Bain Capital is incompatible with his retention of the title of CEO? Is that it? I guess you suffer from the same problems as guyser. I've explained this in great detail, many times, and I feel no need to revisit it. There's really only so much I can do to try and help you folks, here. I can open the door, but you need to walk through it.

No I think if Romney says I still had a relationship with Bain and attended Board meetings and other Obligations over the period of 1999-2002 to get on a ballot in Mass in 2002. While now he says from 1999-2002 I had no relationship. One of those statements is a lie. So he either lied in 2002 to get on the Mass Ballot or he is lying now. I don't know which one it is but it makes him a lair.

[kraychik]

No I think if Romney says I still had a relationship with Bain and attended Board meetings and other Obligations over the period of 1999-2002 to get on a ballot in Mass in 2002. While now he says from 1999-2002 I had no relationship. One of those statements is a lie. So he either lied in 2002 to get on the Mass Ballot or he is lying now. I don't know which one it is but it makes him a lair.

He never said he had no relationship with Bain Capital during that time.

[punked]

He never said he had no relationship with Bain Capital during that time.

“As we’ve said countless times, since Feb. 11, 1999, Gov. Romney has not had any active role with Bain Capital,” Romney press secretary Andrea Saul said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78463.html

That took 2 seconds. Why do Conservatives not think Google exists and that you can't just type in their claim to see if it is true or not?

[kraychik]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78463.html

That took 2 seconds. Why do Conservatives not think Google exists and that you can't just type in their claim to see if it is true or not?

I've already explained this many times. People can and do hold executive positions with organisations with which they have no active role in management. This is the case with Romney when he retained the title of CEO with Bain Capital until just before 2002 even after his departure from active management in February of 1999. You lost this argument. And if you maintain this method of yours, you'll lose many more.

[kraychik]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78463.html

That took 2 seconds. Why do Conservatives not think Google exists and that you can't just type in their claim to see if it is true or not?

One last thing to point out, and this speaks volumes to your reading comprehension skills, is that you are understanding the phrase "no relation" to be synonymous with "no active role". Words matter, you know? I shouldn't say this surprised me, however, because the left is all about trying (and failing) to redefine language.

[punked]

I've already explained this many times. People can and do hold executive positions with organisations with which they have no active role in management. This is the case with Romney when he retained the title of CEO with Bain Capital until just before 2002 even after his departure from active management in February of 1999. You lost this argument. And if you maintain this method of yours, you'll lose many more.

He swore in 2002 that he had a relationship with Bain and attended Board meetings to get on the Mass Ballot. You can have as many stories as you want but because every post you have a different answer everyone can see that you could care less about the truth.

Did Romney or didn't Romney fly to Mass for Bain Board meetings from 1999-2002?

BTW I would call flying across a country to attend Board meetings an "Active role". Just say it Romney got caught in a lie and move on.

Edited July 18, 2012 by punked

[kraychik]

Anyways, here is the CBC toeing the line of the left, parroting the lies and spinning this story as a "huge week for Obama" (according to leftist contributor and guest from Maclean's magazine). Of course, CBC will not examine Obama's dismal record on the economy, with massive unemployment and anaemic economic growth. What they need to do, as the committed leftists that they are, is contribute to the ignorance of Canadians by not actually explaining what was explained by many American media outlets: that this smear from the Obama campaign is completely dishonest. More importantly, the polls haven't shown any positive movement for Obama, but don't let that change the leftist's description of the "huge week" for Obama.

CBC video - Romney's Bain Battle

[Pliny]

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?

Don't know the answer? No economist can or will argue that anyone paid 92% of their income to taxes. The write-offs and loopholes were worse at that time than now - where GE can pay 0%. The statistic is a statistic. As usual one needs to look beyond the statistic to find out the reality.

[Pliny]

Like the tax lien auctions Argus posted about?

The property tax lien laws are not from the Federal government. They are municipal or county property tax laws and they are pretty much the same in Canada. Some people in the States are questioning these laws but not in Canada. The only Federal law regarding property is that of "eminent domain".

But the focus here on this thread is the federal government under Obama and his deceitful ways to deflect from his record as President.

[Argus]

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.

So you're saying the United States was a Marxist state in 1952?

[Argus]

Don't know the answer? No economist can or will argue that anyone paid 92% of their income to taxes. The write-offs and loopholes were worse at that time than now - where GE can pay 0%. The statistic is a statistic. As usual one needs to look beyond the statistic to find out the reality.

The reality is they paid more than they do now. Do you deny this?

[GostHacked]

You can't even compose coherent posts....

What? A kraychick post without 'leftist'??

[Pliny]

The reality is they paid more than they do now. Do you deny this?

The reality is you have to look beyond the simple posted rate and dig really deep. The tax rate today for GE is 35% without any other data I must assume they paid 35%.

The wealth of a nation is indicative of its level of real savings because it is real savings that will be invested in economic growth and you cannot tax 92% of the income of the nation's rich and continue to have economic growth. You can bet there was a lot of money offshore when the tax rate was 92%. The Government of today is recently hard at work trying to limit offshore banking, even though it is less of a problem with the tax rate at 35%.

Government tries to pump an economy by printing money or lowering interest rates making money cheaper. It might work for a short time but is only a stop-gap measure because new money is generally mis-allocated flowing to already failing enterprises. GM would be an example. It may have gotten a shot in the arm with the stimulus money but unless it fundamentally changes it's business practices, which I don't believe it has, it won't last too long, maybe a couple of years if the economy survives. If the economy tanks, which theory and history predict, it won't matter.

Your workplace is full of workers with Marxist ideals but I don't think they realize it. I think some of it has rubbed off on you.

[Argus]

The reality is you have to look beyond the simple posted rate and dig really deep. The tax rate today for GE is 35% without any other data I must assume they paid 35%

I'm sure they didn't pay the full 92% just like rich people today don't pay the full rate. But the rate today is a third of what it was in the fifties. That would imply they pay one third what they did in the fifties, would it not?

The wealth of a nation is indicative of its level of real savings because it is real savings that will be invested in economic growth and you cannot tax 92% of the income of the nation's rich and continue to have economic growth.

And yet, the fifties were a time of real economic growth, which kind of renders the above statement, uhm, wrong.

You can bet there was a lot of money offshore when the tax rate was 92%

.

Sure. Same thing today. And I disagree it's less of a problem. It's so easy to move money around today it's probably more of a problem.

Your workplace is full of workers with Marxist ideals but I don't think they realize it. I think some of it has rubbed off on you.

My ideology is pragmatism. I look at the system of taxation in place in the US today and it's blindingly obvious that it's not working. There were always rich people in the US, but nothing like today. The disparity in wealth and power is becoming dangerously high, and the wealthy few are basically buying the country, its politicians, and its media organs. You are seeing the rise of what looks like a future ruling oligarchy similar to what we might see in science fiction books, where democracy is a sham front for the super wealthy who control everything.

[punked]

Just so we are clear that Washingpost fact check Shady keeps referring to was walked back today. It was walked back because people and the media did serious research into the claim AND there has been no real explanation from Romney about these claims. I will wait for Shady to walk back his claim in the same way.

However, a case could be made that, with his ownership role shown in SEC documents, he still bore some responsibility. (As far we can tell, Romney has never said that the Bain deals done in that period had problems.)

We strive for the greatest level of accuracy in attack ads. While we cannot definitely prove that Romney did not play a role in Bain deals in 1999, neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign.

But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response....

So we are at an impasse. Because of the ambiguity, there is considerable room for interpretation of known facts. Going forward, unless new evidence emerges, on a case-by-case basis we may withhold the awarding of Pinocchios when the claim rests mostly on the question of when Romney stopped managing Bain Capital.

Edited July 21, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

Just so we are clear that Washingpost fact check Shady keeps referring to was walked back today. It was walked back because people and the media did serious research into the claim AND there has been no real explanation from Romney about these claims. I will wait for Shady o walk back his claim in the same way.

Regardless, if Romney used government roads to get to his business, other people made that happen.

[punked]

Regardless, if Romney used government roads to get to his business, other people made that happen.

I still wait for you to say you were wrong, as the fact checkers walk back their poor fact checking.

[Shady]

I still wait for you to say you were wrong, as the fact checkers walk back their poor fact checking.

I'm just glad you're finally acknowledging that Obama's lies were called out by places like the Washington Post long ago. Before you pretended it didn't happen. Anyways, them stating that "a case could be made" is hardly anything definitive. Keep trying to distract from Obama's terrible record. Did you know he's added 4 billion dollars of debt every day since he took office? 4 billion every day!!!