Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right-wingers are trying to get you to believe that Romney was being paid a salary ("separate from investment earnings") of $100,000 or more per year, while he was IN NO WAY connected to the company and had nothing to do with it at all.

And Romney wants to whine about people wanting "free stuff"...

---

Not only that, but...

1. The man the Repubs want for president is, apparently, incapable of doing anything else while he organizes the Olympic Games. Can't even make calls to check in on his own business. OK, the Olympics is a helluva big job and all, but not as big the Presidency of the entire damned US! How can he run a whole country if he can't multitask while planning a sports competition?


2. Romney's camp expects us to believe that he put his name, his company, and his full financial might into the hands of people who did things he claims he would NOT have approved of (out-sourcing, off-shoring, etc) and he never once checked in on them. What does this say about his leadership abilities? His ability to use power responsibly? How is it better than if he'd done this stuff himself?

3. I can see that Romney might have felt he needed to lie to get out of this Bain problem, but that fact that he chose such a *stupid* lie (see #1 and #2) is mind-boggling!


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:


Up to his ass in it I said, conga lines of skeletons I said, enough to have him locked up I said.
Thought I was kidding ?
This *STILL* isn't the half of it, the deeper you dig, the more awful it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:


Up to his ass in it I said, conga lines of skeletons I said, enough to have him locked up I said.
Thought I was kidding ?
This *STILL* isn't the half of it, the deeper you dig, the more awful it is.

---

I knew you were spot on Frem, but the more awful it gets, the more I see the idiot puppets voting for this turd. UNLESS he had sex with someone. Then he'd be down for the count.

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You can recover from anything as long as you aren't caught in bed with a dead girl, or a live boy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Another case of "Kwickfacts"?

---

If by "Kwickfacts" you mean spin, spin, spin, then yes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Just. Wow. The Romney-lies are piling deeper and deeper, and now seem to blatantly involve law breaking. There's not an etch-a-sketch big enough to shake this out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But on his federal disclosure statement, Romney declared no participation in "any way" — which presumably would cover signing documents that enabled deals to go forward.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But on his federal disclosure statement, Romney declared no participation in "any way" — which presumably would cover signing documents that enabled deals to go forward.

---

He retired in 1999, but still owned the business. As the owner he has every right to delegate the business operations any way he chooses. He turned the running of the business over to another person, likely several people...but he's still the owner and he still has to be responsible and sign the paperwork, especially for larger deals.

Its like the a pro football team...there is usually an owner (or coalition of owners). The team is usually managed by a General Manager and a President of Operations (and a Head Coach). Now the owner can also take on any or all of those roles and sometimes does, but often does not. Despite this its the owner who is there on draft day to shake the hand of the newest first rounder and who is the first person to get handed the trophey after the team wins the Super Bowl despite never playing on the field, calling a play, making a player-personel decision, or doing anything other then hiring someone to do all those things for him.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Another case of "Kwickfacts"?

---

If by "Kwickfacts" you mean prove you consistently wrong, then yes.

---

I smell desperation.

Maybe Romney will start distributing free Kool Aid in late October.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

In any event, it seems very likely that this will not be an issue that sinks this presidential nominee.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
BREAKING NEWS: GWB has retroactively resigned the Presidency as of August 2001.

Now all that stuff is definitely not his fault! You know, the terror attack, the unfunded wars, the destruction of civil rights, the crashed economy, the non-existent WMDs, the exploding deficit, the shrunken middle class, the war on woman, the vilification of poor people...

OK, W went by the title POTUS, signed off on official paperwork, collected his pay, and kept a part-time residency in DC (just so he can run for governor if he wants to later.) But he definitely wasn't in charge of any kind of decision making!

(Actually, that last one is frighteningly true...)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

In any event, it seems very likely that this will not be an issue that sinks this presidential nominee.

--Anthony

---

True.

But it does give the Liberal analogue to "Birthers" something to form circle-jerks over, as witness this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

In any event, it seems very likely that this will not be an issue that sinks this presidential nominee.

--Anthony

---

True.

But it does give the Liberal analogue to "Birthers" something to form circle-jerks over, as witness this thread.

---

Never would have pegged you for a birther or a liberal, but I guess I'll have to take your word for it that you are both, as witness your continued presence in this thread. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

In any event, it seems very likely that this will not be an issue that sinks this presidential nominee.

--Anthony

---

True.

But it does give the Liberal analogue to "Birthers" something to form circle-jerks over, as witness this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:


In comparison, point out something that Obama was a success at creating. His entire career has been about causing dissent and divisiveness, with a side helping of encouraging public dependence on the government. He may be the single greatest example of the Peter Principle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you liked Mike's original article so much you decided to do homage by also taking selected quotes out of context? Nice to see the teamwork, I guess.

---

Hey sport - nice use of step 2 of the RWA topic denial/avoidance process: criticizing the way the statement was made, rather than replying on topic.

If you've been paying any attention to the internets over the last decade or so, you'd know that this is generally what happens in chats. There's a link to the full article, but only short quotes are posted to save space. You're a grown-up, thinking adult (right?), so you ought to be capable of going to the link yourself. (Hint - click on the underlined stuff that starts with " http://"; )

Here's what you can you do, rather than pulling a Romney-styled waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! How's about you copy over some quotes of your own and explain exactly how I took Kessler's words "out of context." Can you do that? Got any meat to go with the whine?

A reminder of the topic: my post was a reply to your specific statement and your specific link:

Quote:

---

Or do you believe that CNN and FactCheck, (as well as the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-docu
ments-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html ) are a bunch of right-wing liars?

---

I wouldn't call Glenn Kessler a "right wing liar." It's certainly possible that he is one, but I don't know him well enough to call him that. But this blog clearly shows that, at the very least, he's a right-wing master of self-delusion and twisted, self-serving anti-logic. Kind of like Romney and many posters here, people so wedded to their beliefs and their worship of the "Victory for the Right!" that they aren't capable of recognizing their own un-truths.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaveTroll:


In comparison, point out something that Obama was a success at creating.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I watched, Mark, his lips DIDN'T move! AND he was drinking a glass of water at the time. What a master.

That was one of the most assinine statements I've read from the same source too, I have to admit. But then it's not that striking; string together a bunch of words--preferably the worst you can think of--hurl it at the other party (doesn't matter if it has a scintilla of truth in it or not) and hope it sticks. Or that somebody believes it, if you say it often enough.

Sound like anyone we know?

You know, your mention of Dunhill made me smile. Forget his name, but his original dummy--the old man--somehow that face seems to be what Troll, Raptor, Whatzit and those like them seem to have...an angry, sour face where the mouth has turned down so many times that it's in a permanent scowl...so sad.

As to the original question here, Romney's a liar. Many times over--I don't know about felonies, but I'm pretty sure he's got smart people making sure he stays (just inside) the law, but liar? MANY times over. Too many to count.

"in South Carolina we were vastly outspent with negative ads attacking me"...analyses show that Romney's campaign and associated super PAC spent nearly double what Gingrich's forces did in the state http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/huh-mitt-claims-n
ewt-outspent-him-in-sc-112938.html



Romney claimed in an interview that his "tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent", partly because he gives "15% to charity". Both are actually untrue...explanations for the first at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/25/1058470/-Now-Mitt-Romney-clai
ms-he-actually-pays-a-50-tax-rate?via=siderecent . As for the 15% to charity, as a Mormon, Romney is REQUIRED to tithe 10% of EVERYTHING to the church. I don't know if the extra 5% is because we don't know about all his finances, or he actually GAVE 5% to some other charity, but the fact is that he WAS REQUIRED to give 10% to the Mormon Church. That's not "charity" and he didn't "give" it; he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart, and the Mormon Church isn't a "charity", parse the wording however you want.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Well, funny thing about it, in an arson-murder-and-jaywalking kinda way that is...
He's been shorting them on the tithe too!

Although, I'm trying to imagine a bunch of angry mormons... and it's just not coming.

---

Think of Harry Reid the other day, when he said he was "outraged" - that's what an angry Mormon looks like.

Quote:

---

Remember these three words though, they'll come on handy soon enough.

Bain, Launder, Leverage.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:

---

subject of the well-exploded piece of Left-wing propaganda you opened this thread with.

---

Nonpartisan as heck, that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So let's sum up:

Mitt Romney wants to be your President, citing his business expertise and his business record as his qualifications. Except he now says that he wasn't the one running his businesses, and he doesn't want to show you any of his records.


Do I have that right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
What I find funnier than hell is what I heard a pundit say last night. Something to the effect of:

"Romney is running on his accumen as a businessman. Yet he claims that he was only titular head of the company, and other people were actually doing the work of running the business.

He also wants us to believe he was really good at financial dealings. Yet according to him, he put his funds in a "blind trust" and let other people make the investing decisions.

So what are we to think of this "great businessman" and "financial whiz"?"

Made me giggle, as well as the footage they showed of Romney saying in 1994:

Quote:

---

“The blind trust is an age-old ruse, if you will,” Romney said. “Which is to say you can always tell a blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules.”

---

and now

Quote:

---

“I don’t manage the money that I have. In order to make sure that I didn’t have a conflict of interest while I was governor or while I was considering a run for national office, I had a blind trust established,”

---

Hysterical. Poor baby just can't remember what his stance was on ANYTHING, it would seem. "I don't know what I said, but I stand by what I said". And the righties want him for PRESIDENT? Eeep.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But we're also supposed to believe that Romney bears absolutely no responsibility for anything his company ever did while he was founder, president, CEO, and sole shareholder?

---

No.

You're supposed to note that both FactCheck and CNN find Romney had no involvement with Bain after he left active management in 1999 to work on the Salt Lake Olympics, which is the issue under discussion, and the subject of the well-exploded piece of Left-wing propaganda you opened this thread with.

Or do you believe that CNN and FactCheck, (as well as the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-docu
ments-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html ) are a bunch of right-wing liars?

---

Quote:

---

The Bottom Line
We thank our readers for the many e-mails, comments, tweets, phone calls and letters considering this issue.
We have previously laid out the evidence, pro and con, concerning Romney’s management of Bain after 1999. Our position has been that he effectively stopped managing Bain when he left for his Olympics job. Most important, without direct evidence, we have been reluctant to grant carte blanche to the Obama campaign or Romney’s GOP rivals to assert that Romney had a direct role in Bain deals between 1999 and 2002 (“Romney closed 1,000 stores…”).
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.
[UPDATE: The Boston Globe on July 20 published a lengthy article looking into this period. The reporters did not find evidence Romney was involved in specific deals but reveal a Palm Beach, Fla. meeting that he attended with his partners. The newspaper reported that “by remaining CEO and sole shareholder, Romney held on to his leverage in the talks that resulted in his generous 10-year retirement package…Before he left, tasks were doled out to other partners, including work on an investment committee and a compensation committee. He was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, meaning he had no role in assessing new investments, his partners said, a departure from his having previously had the final say on every deal….But Romney still had a lot of money on the table; much of his personal wealth was tied up in Bain. And he was still technically in charge.”]
Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide.
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.

---