Team Obama Should Thank Karl Rove
The team of people working diligently to re-elect Barack Obama should really, right about now, be sending a big "thank you" note to none other than Karl Rove -- for providing them the playbook they are now using to maximum effect on Mitt Romney. Maybe Rove left a copy of it lying around, when the Dubya administration was packing up its things to exit the White House, who knows?
In pre-Rovian times in American politics, election strategy went something like this: Find the major weaknesses in your opponent. Exploit those weaknesses by informing the public what a serious lack each weakness is. Build on attacking the opposition candidate's weaknesses, until you eventually undermine even their strongest points in the public's eye.
Karl Rove, however, stood all that on its head, to brilliant effect. The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 was the most successful example of this new way of thinking: Find out what your opponent thinks are his strengths. Directly, indirectly, and through innuendo, launch a full-scale attack on his perceived strongest point. When you've obliterated the opponent's main rationale for running, then there'll be plenty of time later on to take on the minor stuff -- the opponent's weaknesses. By destroying the strongest part of their campaign first, you define them to the public before they get a chance to define themselves -- thereby making it impossible for your opponent to create his own "first impression" with the voters. The first impression that they'll get is "the main reason he says he is running is based on a lie," and that's the one that will stick in their minds.
To put this another way, Mitt Romney is finding out what it's like to be John Kerry. The two, after all, have a lot in common -- a political career in Massachusetts, lots of money, and a serious deficit of charisma. Terms such as "Bain-boating" and "Swissboating" are starting to be used to describe the similarities between Romney's current position and the infamous "swift boat" ads of 2004.
John Kerry's strongest point as a candidate was supposed to be his military career (remember that "I'm reporting for duty" at the convention?). This was precisely what got attacked, early and often, from his opposition. Mitt Romney's strongest point as a candidate was supposed to be his financial wizard career, positioning himself as "Mr. Fix-It" for the American economy. Now, his time at Bain Capital is making him squirm in the public eye.
Karl Rove couldn't have done it any better himself. And I mean that as a compliment.
Without getting too far into the weeds of the details of the Bain questions which have now arisen, the public is left with a list of questions and general impressions. The talking heads on cable television get bogged down in the specifics of the charges and countering moves, but here's what the public seems to be taking away from the fracas:
When I sign my name, it means something
This is really the level the Obama team should hit hard next, because it is how the average Main Street American thinks of such issues. "When I sign my name to a mortgage or a credit card application, I know that I am signing up to be responsible for that mortgage or credit card." That's a pretty simple concept that every American knows. Mitt signed his name to documents that said he was responsible for a company. Now he says he wasn't. That is a gigantic disconnect, right there, that should be directly hammered upon in Obama ads, because it goes to the question of responsibility and trust for the voters. You sign your name, and you take responsibility. Everybody knows that, right?
Money for nothing
Another basic fact underlying the whole wrestling match is that -- even taking Mitt's story at face value -- Romney seemed to be getting paid to do nothing. According to Mitt, he "left" Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics, and took a "leave of absence" while doing so, and was not involved in Bain from that point on. OK, then why was he getting paid at least $100,000 per year by Bain? If, as he claims, he was doing precisely nothing for the company, and was on a leave of absence, then why did this salary continue? This goes straight to the heart of how most Americans see life for the one percent: playing a game which they have rigged in their favor. How many jobs do average Americans hold down which allow them to take three years off and still rake in six figures for doing nothing? So much for the whole "Puritan work ethic" thing, eh? As Dire Straits so aptly put it: "That ain't workin' -- that's the way you do it."
What's Mitt hiding?
This is a recurring theme throughout the entire controversy. Romney's "weasel factor" is climbing off the charts. While the whole Bain "When did Mitt quit?" problem certainly adds enormously to this -- every time Romney or one of his surrogates gives one of those oh-so-carefully-vetted-by-lawyers responses to a simple question about Bain, the "weasel factor" goes up another notch. But the real key to this one is Romney's refusal to release his tax returns for public vetting. What is Mitt hiding? That's the question on the lips of most political reporters, which leads to massive rampant speculation about what could possibly be in there that is so much worse for Mitt than taking the continuing (and growing) heat about his non-transparency.
Absolutely nobody, at this point, expects Mitt to live up to the 12-year standard set by his own father, but the really interesting thing to consider is that Mitt should have no problem at all releasing his tax returns back to (at the very least) 2008. Think about it: when you run for president, the first thing you do is get your financial house in order so that it is so squeaky clean that your own mother could visit it and not find metaphorical undusted shelves or uncleaned bathroom appliances. Mitt, assumably, did this in 2008 when he first ran for president. He would have been a fool not to. More to the point, Mitt has been running for president non-stop since 2008. There was no break in his campaign, since the very minute he saw who had won the 2008 election, Mitt's 2012 campaign started. So why can't Mitt release at least the last four or five years of tax returns? There should be nothing controversial at all in there (other than the fact that he's wealthy, which is no surprise to anyone). In fact, Mitt should be able to easily release his tax returns back to when he began as governor of Massachusetts.
To put it another way, say a rich guy decided to run for president. We'll call him (just for argument's sake) "Ronald Rump." Maybe this rich guy hasn't always been in politics, and is just now jumping into the arena. It is entirely understandable why he wouldn't want to release tax returns stretching back a decade, because there are probably embarrassing things there from the period before he got interested in politics.
But that excuse doesn't work for Mitt -- at least not for the years 2008 onwards. Mitt knew he was running for president from that point on... so what's he hiding, really?
Mr. Loophole
Right now, the conventional Republican wisdom is that it would be quite easy to "fix the tax code." What they would do is to "reduce tax rates," but at the same time "broaden the base" by "getting rid of loopholes" -- so, in the end, it would be "revenue-neutral" and bring in the same amount of tax dollars it does today.
For average people, however, Mitt Romney is looking more and more like Mr. Loophole himself. What tiny fraction of voters have offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland? Why would one need a Swiss bank account, if not to dodge taxes? That is the question the voters are left with -- and it's not a very good impression. Mitt Romney is asking people to believe his tax reform will eliminate loopholes -- the very loopholes he appears to be taking full advantage of, every chance he gets. It is simply not believable to most folks to then make the leap that he's going to be the one who fixes the loophole problem.
Show us your papers, please
Joe Biden has already used this line to great effect in front of an audience from a crucial demographic: Latinos. What with the Republican "papers, please" attitude on immigration, Biden turned it around and used the metaphor against Romney's love of financial secrecy. While not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, the irony is so delicious that this line could become quite popular among Democrats in general. It only serves to feed into the "What is Mitt hiding?" theme, in catchy and memorable fashion.
To conclude, Mitt Romney is not a happy camper right now. What was supposed to be his strongest political asset is fast turning into his biggest liability. The Obama team is well on its way to defining Mitt Romney to that portion of the public that hasn't been paying much attention until now -- and defining Mitt on the Obama team's terms.
So far, Mitt's team hasn't been very good at responding. This could soon change, however. Last week, the Romney team quietly announced two new hires, in the fields of long-term communications strategy and rapid response communications. By this fall, the past few weeks may be forgotten, and the Romney team may have gotten its political act together. Things change fast in the political world.
One big change, however, seems to be here to stay. Candidates from both parties will continue to use Karl Rove's patented "attack them where they think they're strongest" playbook for a long time to come. For one very simple reason: it works.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Do Democrats REALLY want to go with the "What is he hiding" attack???
That would be one of the WORST lines of attack to go on..
Because Independents and NPAs will laugh themselves silly at the idea that OBAMA, Mr Executive Privilege on Fast/Furious, Mr Won't Release School Records, Mr WORST Transparency Record EVER... Independents and NPAs are going to laugh themselves silly that OBAMA would attack someone else on the issue of transparency...
Like I said, Romney should stand the line and be as NON-Transparent as Obama has been...
If Romney has something to hide because he is not transparent, you can bet that Obama has something to hide as well..
The problem is, in addition to being secretive, Obama ALSO has a crappy record on the economy...
Romney does not...
Michale.....
Personally (and I am not the Political Operator that Rove is) I think ANY line of attack that reminds the voters of one's OWN failings is probably not a line of attack a candidate wants to pursue..
In this case, Obama may be attacking Romney on Romney's greatest strengths, but they are also Obama's greatest weaknesses...
I don't think it's a good campaign strategy for Obama to remind everyone how badly he has frak'ed things up...
Michale.....
Apropos of absolutely nothing (I'll answer comments for real tonight, I promise!)...
Matt Osborne has an AWESOME review of the new Judge Dredd movie over at his Osborne Ink site. I encourage everyone to go check it out, it's got the full movie trailer.
And please, for the love of all that's holy, just put that image of Stallone RIGHT out of your head before you do (shudder)...
More later, promise.
-CW
Michale -
Getting worried about November yet?
Hmmm? Just curious...
-CW
Getting worried about November yet?
I think Sabato's got it right: http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-how-big-are-romney-bain-liabilities/9FD1E1E8-DCC5-41DE-BD23-9D1E61D3F742.html
CW,
Worried??
Hell no.. In THAT regard, I absolutely *LOVE* the Bain attacks..
Because the ONLY group they appeal to are the Obama Supporters... People who are already voting for Obama LOVE the Bain attacks..
And you know as well as I do that practically ANYTHING the Left loves, the Independents and NPAs hate...
So, by all means. If Obama wants to lose... and lose VERY badly, the Bain attacks are definitely the way to go...
CB,
Romney's liabilities are absolutely miniscule when compared with Obama's liabilities...
MINISCULE.....
Michale.....
Chris,
Its more than just "when I sign my name, it means something", SEC filings are legal affidavits, signing them is a legal testament to their accuracy under penalty of perjury. If Mitt wasn't CEO then he did commit a felony. If he was CEO then he was responsible for company policy even if he never showed up for work or actually did anything else, which would make him a liar now.
You may be right about the Rove playbook. Or, it may just be that, unlike the attack on Kerry, this one has the benefit of being true. And, just maybe, that's what's really driving it.
Michale: And you know as well as I do that practically ANYTHING the Left loves, the Independents and NPAs hate...
Sure does look that way:
66% Believe U.S. Has Too Much Government Power, Too Little Freedom
Today, however, 66% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that there is too much government power and too little individual freedom. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just eight percent (8%) believe the opposite to be true. Twenty-two percent (22%) think the balance is about right....
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2012/66_believe_u_s_has_too_much_government_power_too_little_freedom
To conclude, Mitt Romney is not a happy camper right now. What was supposed to be his strongest political asset is fast turning into his biggest liability. The Obama team is well on its way to defining Mitt Romney to that portion of the public that hasn't been paying much attention until now -- and defining Mitt on the Obama team's terms.
I'm not seeing any evidence of this. I'm seeing the O team burn through an awful lot of money in TV buys — in July, when no one's paying attention except for the hard-cores. And for all the ads that have run, O remains in a dead heat with Romney.
And for all the ads that have run, O remains in a dead heat with Romney.
And THAT really says it all..
Obama has spent over 100 million dollars on NEGATIVE ads against Romney..
And has absolutely NOTHING to show for it..
And the problem with going negative so soon in an election is, it eventually burns out.. People want to vote for a guy they can feel good about..
Not a guy who is nothing but negatives...
And Obama has negatives... In spades...
Michale.....
LD,
You may be right about the Rove playbook. Or, it may just be that, unlike the attack on Kerry, this one has the benefit of being true. And, just maybe, that's what's really driving it.
So, when the Left does it, it's "true"...
When the Right does it, it's not..
I really wish you could step outside yourself and see yourself from a political agnostics point of view...
It would really be an eye opener for you.. :D
Michale......
I think this op-ed says it all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-media-obsess-on-bain-while-we-head-to-a-recession/2012/07/16/gJQANHGGpW_blog.html
Yep.. The media is in the bag for Obama... By and large they won't put out anything against him....
We live with the MSM we have, not the MSM we want..
And, unfortunately, the current MSM is nothing but a White House mouthpiece...
'tis sad, 'tis true..... 'tis true, 'tis sad...
Michale.....
US refuses to help Syrian rebels until after election
Barack Obama’s US government has warned its western allies and Syria’s opposition groups that it can do nothing to intervene in the country’s crisis until after November’s presidential election, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9404452/US-refuses-to-help-Syrian-rebels-until-after-election.html
Once again, it's all about politics with Obama..
Forget about doing what's right for the country or the world or the suffering.....
It's all about doing what's right for Obama...
Michale.....
Another basic fact underlying the whole wrestling match is that -- even taking Mitt's story at face value -- Romney seemed to be getting paid to do nothing. According to Mitt, he "left" Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics, and took a "leave of absence" while doing so, and was not involved in Bain from that point on. OK, then why was he getting paid at least $100,000 per year by Bain? If, as he claims, he was doing precisely nothing for the company, and was on a leave of absence, then why did this salary continue?
Y'know, seriously, I think folks on the Left need to pause for a moment and look at their own questions. Does $100K sound like the salary of a CEO? Or does that look more like a cut that any number of partners would receive for simply having a stake in the company?
Romney has little to hang his hat on, why offer your head to be the peg? If your best attack is to scream foul and claim non-disclosure of the other side in unrelated matters as being the over-riding issue in this, there's not much behind. Never let your partisanship lock up political sense, even if it is easy. Romney has a major problem that is blatant and easily understood. Maybe, maybe this fades to the background (for his sake) until the debates come around and President Obama makes a clear-cut precise case and Romney will still not know how to respond in any way that will hearten the citizenry to his side over this.
Money for nothing
So, anyone who does investments should be considered a criminal???
After all, that's "money for nothing"...
Michale.....
Not until I read the FactCheck article did I realize how truly desperate Team-O was. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/ I can't believe they've spent all those millions of ad dollars on pure spin. And bad spin, at that. There's no "there" there, as the old saying goes.
Good catch, CB...
Any comments from Wegantians on that Fact Check article???
{{{{{cchhhiiirrrrrppppp}}}} {{chhiiirrrrpppp}}
:D
Sorry, but after the shellacking I took over the SCOTUS/ObamaCare/Tax ruling, I think I have earned a little gloat here and there.. :D
Michale.....
We re-state our conclusion that “some of the claims in the [recent Obama] ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.” And we suggest that should Obama campaign officials discover any actual evidence that Romney personally participated in any management decisions at Bain after February of 1999, they should produce it to a federal prosecutor.
-factcheck.org
Team Obama could have Romney eliminated from the election.....
If only their claim was actually true...
Michale.....
This all boils down to a departing CEO's title remaining on the paperwork until a new CEO is installed, which isn't even remotely unusual, much less illegal. And THIS is what Team-O is pouring millions upon millions of ad dollars into??? Every time I read another Bain attack, I think, "Does ANYONE over at Team-O understand how business operates? How a departing CEO can still be a CEO 'on paper' until such time as the official reorg transpires, 'on paper'?" It just keeps highlighting Obama's wholesale ignorance of basic, common business practices and operations.
And what the heck does ANY of this have to do with whether Romney participated in day-to-day decisions? He clearly didn't, as he was unquestionably working full-time — hell, beyond full-time — on the Olympics. So what point is Team-O even trying to make? That if you're on a leave of absence, you're still required to monitor the day-to-day activities of a company? Doesn't that, in itself, defeat the entire purpose of a leave of absence???
Next time Obama claims that Romney is "outsourcer in chief", ask Obama where do our astronauts launch from... :^/
Michale....
I really wish you could step outside yourself and see yourself from a political agnostics point of view...
It would really be an eye opener for you.. :D
Michale......
::eyeroll::
The irony is so thick!
Next time Obama claims that Romney is "outsourcer in chief", ask Obama where do our astronauts launch from
Just another example of the breathtaking hypocrisy O practices. Like nobody's supposed to notice.
"..."Mr. Romney claims that he's Mr. Fix-it for the economy because of his business experience. And so I think voters entirely legitimately want to know, well what exactly was that business experience?" Obama said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/15/us-usa-campaign-idUSBRE86E0D920120715
This, from the guy with ZERO business experience. Again, the hypocrisy is beyond mind-boggling.
ninjaf,
The irony is so thick!
No irony at all..
I have supported the Left and castigated the Right on MANY occasions...
No commenter here can make the same claim vis a vis supporting the Right and castigating the Left...
Not a single one.
So, where's the irony??
Michale.....
Another person who the Obama campaign should thank is John McCain ...
Here's the playbook ... literally, the playbook, McCain used against Romney in 2008
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File
I haven't had a chance to read it all yet but it's fascinating to see what these look like.
Best,
-David
Team Obama could have Romney eliminated from the election.....
If only their claim was actually true...
This bears closer examination...
We know, from past experience, that Obama's DOJ doesn't have ANY compunction about opening investigations at the drop of a dime, to further a political agenda... The Zimmerman investigation is just one of tons of examples of this..
So, does anyone here HONESTLY believe that, if there was even the SLIGHTEST whiff of factual evidence here, that the DOJ wouldn't open an investigation faster than Romney could utter the word, "Felony??"...
The fact that there IS no investigation simply proves beyond ANY doubt that Team Obama's claims don't even past the "whiff" test..
The claims simply stink.. Period...
Michale.....
Michale: The fact that there IS no investigation simply proves beyond ANY doubt that Team Obama's claims don't even past the "whiff" test..
The claims simply stink.. Period...
I can't over the amount of MONEY Team-O has spent, trying to sell this turkey. What have they spent? Something like $50 million bucks?
Michale,
You carry so much water for the right, I am surprised we did not see a yoke around your neck in the picture CW posted of you (missed the video feeds)! ;)
An independent would quote Fox News, et al rarely, if ever, as supporting evidence for a point they are trying to make. They would find something from Reuters, AP, ProPublica, BBC...anything but the right wing media machine to support their point. Very likely, they would use mainstream media sources like CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN because they would not be reading/listening/watching partisan media.
That is where the irony lies -- you are not politically agnostic.
"Wall Street says they prefer Mitt Romney for President. And by God, who could question Wall Street's judgment?"
- David Letterman
I can't improve on that ...
-David
BTW- Romney claims to have "retired retroactively" from Bain
Hahahahahahahah ... Does that mean that once he realized that Bain was a political liability this year he went back and retired from Bain?
Hahahahahahahahah ... You just can't make this stuff up.
You carry so much water for the right, I am surprised we did not see a yoke around your neck in the picture CW posted of you (missed the video feeds)! ;)
It only SEEMS that way because of the total Left wing bent of the commenters here..
There are many times where I denigrate the Right as much, if not more than I do the Left...
An independent would quote Fox News, et al rarely, if ever, as supporting evidence for a point they are trying to make.
I go where the facts take me. Sometimes it's FNC, sometimes it's CNN, sometimes it's Al Jazerra... Hell, sometimes it's even HuffPo and Daily Kos...
But it's interesting that you automatically think anything out of Fox is false..
Perhaps you are projecting. :D
Very likely, they would use mainstream media sources like CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN because they would not be reading/listening/watching partisan media.
I often quote those sources as well. Mostly to show how in the bag they are for Team Obama.. :D
That is where the irony lies -- you are not politically agnostic.
Actually, you are quite correct...
a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
I guess maybe a political atheist would be a better description..
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I don't believe in the "godly-ness" of any political party..
Ideology (whether it be religious or political) is for people who can't handle reality... :D
David,
BTW- Romney claims to have "retired retroactively" from Bain
I have to admit, David.. I am somewhat surprised.
"You surprise me, Mr Tuvok. That is a rare and special gift for a Q. Thank you."
-Quinn, STAR TREK: VOYAGER, Deathwish
I figured with your financial experience, you would be the first to see the utter nonsense that Obama's Bain attacks are...
Yes, you CAN "retire retroactively". The manner in which Romney did it, is logical and, more important, in keeping with the documented facts...
I take it you didn't read the factcheck.org report, eh?? :D
I also refer you to comment #27....
Michale
"Wall Street says they prefer Mitt Romney for President. And by God, who could question Wall Street's judgment?"
- David Letterman
China, Iran, North Korea all say they prefer Barack Obama for President..
:D
Michale.....
An independent would quote Fox News, et al rarely, if ever, as supporting evidence for a point they are trying to make.
In the here and now, there are two great big lies..
The first big lie is that Satan has convinced the world he does not exist.
The second is that the Left have convinced themselves that everything on Fox News is wrong..
When you can show me ANY other MSM outlet that has as much from BOTH sides of the political spectrum as FNC does, then I'll give your thought some serious consideration...
But not until.. :D
Michale.....
Michale.......
I can't over the amount of MONEY Team-O has spent, trying to sell this turkey. What have they spent? Something like $50 million bucks?
I think at last report, it was around 100 million dollars...
And they have absolutely NOTHING to show for it. Romney is still gaining on Obama..
Michale.....
Ninjaf,
Here's a perfect example of what I am talking about..
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/17/obama-right-americans-cant-succeed-without-government/
I am betting that everyone here would agree 100% with Kohn....
I am also betting that, just because it's posted to FoxNews, everyone here would denigrate it as a lie.. Even though it's saying the exact same thing ya'all and Obama are saying...
You tell me that MSNBC et al would have something like that espousing the Right agenda...
Michale.....
And the hypocrisy is laid bare for all to see...
Obama has investments in companies that ship jobs overseas
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-investments-in-companies-that-ship-jobs-overseas/article/2502361
Obama doesn't seem to mind outsourced jobs..
If he can profit from it...
Michale.....
Obama doesn't seem to mind outsourced jobs..
If he can profit from it...
Another shining example of how Team-O needs to clean its own house before pointing the finger at others.
Obama doesn't seem to mind outsourced jobs..
If he can profit from it...
No. It means that, like most of America, he invests in American businesses and many American businesses outsource jobs. Romney, however, was the one doing the outsourcing. But since the facts have such a well known liberal bias false equivalences and meaningless distortions are all you've really got.
Romney, however, was the one doing the outsourcing.
BBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Wrong...
Romney had left Bain before the companies that Obama cites outsourced the jobs.....
Blaming Romney for Bain's outsourcing is like blaming me for what the Army does today, because I served during Desert Storm..
It's well documented that Romney had no control and no influence over Bain's actions after Feb of '99
I know, I know.
Those pesky little facts that won't support your liberal bias.
Pain in da ass, ain't dey....
But since the facts have such a well known liberal bias
Once again, I wish you could step outside yourself and see how utterly partisan your statements are..
"Facts have a liberal bias", indeed..
And "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole" too..
The simple fact is, Obama attacks Romney for outsourcing that Romney never did..
Yet, Obama doesn't mind investing in companies that outsource jobs if it makes him money..
Obama doesn't mind giving companies that outsource jobs loans and grants, if it gets him donations and political support.
What I can't understand is why completely intelligent people (that's ya'all) buy into this utterly self-serving crap and actually SUPPORT and DEFEND it...
It's simply mind-boggling...
"What is my boggle???"
-Wesley Snipes, DEMOLITION MAN
:D
Michale.....
Retired retroactively ...
I can't help it. I'm still laughing about that.
-David
I can't help it. I'm still laughing about that.
That's because you are not thinking it thru logically and objectively..
Here's a fer instance....
Let's say I start up a company that enjoys HUGE success... After 20-30 years building up the company, I want to retire and enjoy the good life..
But the board won't have it. They say the company NEEDS me to stay on..
So, we work a compromise. I'll take a leave of absence for a year to mull it over and think it thru...
After being on a leave of absence for 10 months, I decide my minds made up.. I want to retire..
I inform the board of my decision and tell them I want my retirement to be retroactive from the date I took my leave of absence...
Now, I am not the financial/business wiz that you are, but that really doesn't sound like such an unusual thing... I am certain it happens in the business world all the time...
It's certainly not "funny" in the way Obama told fainting people to see "paralegals" is funny...
But hay.. Maybe you have a quirky sense of humor... :D
Michale.....
Michale [25],
The signature piece of this site is the criticism of Democrats.--On a weekly basis. Democrats criticize Democrats all the time just as Republicans criticize Republicans all the time.
You may well comment more than anyone else on everything. That hardly mitigates against your obvious right-wing bias. As Fox News so amply illustrates being even-handed (of sorts) doesn't automatically mean just and fair.
And speaking of Faux News--The reason your Fox News cites have no credibility is not because of the opinions expressed in their opinion pieces (Michale [35]), its because of the opinion pieces they misrepresent as hard news. I don't believe that anyone has ever complained that an opinion piece wasn't really an author's opinion.
It's certainly not "funny" ...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Nope. Just checked. It's still funny.
-David
That hardly mitigates against your obvious right-wing bias.
My "obvious" Right wing bias is only such when viewed thru the ideological prism of your Left Wing Bias...
If you were as rabid of a Right winger as you are a Left winger, you would say that I have too much of a Left wing bias..
See how that works???
You are far FAR Left so anyone who disagrees with you would, naturally, in your mind have a Right wing bias...
But I can point to many comments where I have taken the Right to task for actions...
Can you do the same?? Can you point to me ANY comments you have made castigating the Left for their actions that are not of the "The Left never sticks it to the Right good enough" variety??
I don't think you can...
The reason your Fox News cites have no credibility is not because of the opinions expressed in their opinion pieces (Michale [35]), its because of the opinion pieces they misrepresent as hard news.
For example.......???????
Do you have ANY examples of "news" pieces from FNC that are actually opinion pieces??
Any??? Any at all???
Michale.....
Michale [39],
The facts in the form of written state and federal affidavits in which Romney himself affirmed under penalty of perjury that he was CEO of Bain from 1999 - 2002 are a matter of public record.
The facts you choose to believe instead are Romney's current unsupported campaign claims. The mental flexibility that enables you to reject written official documents Romney himself attested were accurate and true as not being "facts" while accepting Romney's current self-serving campaign claims as "facts" instead is yet another example of just how irrationally right-wing and totally nonobjective you've become.
Nope. Just checked. It's still funny.
"Yer a weird guy, Ace. A weird guy."
-Dan Marino, ACE VENTURA: PET DETECTIVE
:D
Michale
The facts you choose to believe instead are Romney's current unsupported campaign claims.
No, the FACTS I choose to believe are the FACTS as they are reported in their entirety...
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/
The "facts" YOU choose to believe are from the Obama Spin machine that takes quotes out of context and only reports the parts of articles and statements that support their claims and ignores the rest..
You are being lied to, LD...
Don't buy into the lies.. THINK for yourself...
Romney was no more the CEO of Bain after 1999 than YOU are the CEO of a company you have stock shares for...
These are the FACTS.. No bias, just facts...
Michale.....
Michale you said "Obama has spent over 100 million dollars on NEGATIVE ads against Romney..And has absolutely NOTHING to show for it."
I couldn't disagree further. After months of solid job growth, May and June have been poor - this isn't totally uncommon for the summer months (see 2011). This is the point where Romney should be ramming his message home as 'Mr Jobs'.
Instead he is still down in the polls. In every major battle-ground State (except North Carolina). If the election was held today Obama would walk back into the White House. A lot of this is due to the attack ads.
Ask yourself this: if Romney is still down in the polls when unemployment has flat-lined during the summer how is he going to be doing when it starts to move down again? Even just normal cyclical employment will move the rate down (the summer is always the high point of the year due to school/college grads). If Romney is behind Obama during the HIGH POINT of the unemployment for the year how do you think this implies he will do when unemployment drops as the months go by?
I actually agree with you on the transparency issue, I would be interested to see if Romney re-butts with this. I doubt he will as I'd imagine he wants to go on to the offence, not the defence.
The fact is Romney is a lousy candidate, his record is awful and the more voters find out about him the worse they like him. If Republicans had put forward a strong candidate, with a solid plan (based on popular demands) Obama would have a fight; instead they put forward a weak candidate whose only plans and stances are polling very badly and one who will have serious issues connecting with those disgruntled voters out there who may be considering voting for a change...
Seems "Donnie," who stars in one of O's anti-Romney commercials, is not exactly a fan of O's: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/star-pro-obama-super-pac-ad-unleashed-obama-jerk-pantywaist-lightweight-blowhard_648688.html
The facts in the form of written state and federal affidavits in which Romney himself affirmed under penalty of perjury that he was CEO of Bain from 1999 - 2002 are a matter of public record.
If what you (and Team Obama) say is true, then Romney committed a felony...
Why no charges???
Michale.....
A CEO "on paper" and an acting CEO are not one and the same thing. A CEO on a leave of absence is not an acting CEO. That would defeat the entire purpose of a leave of absence. One would think the Left would be able to figure at least that much out. The second big clue is that acting CEO's don't make a mere $100K a year.
michty,
Instead he is still down in the polls. In every major battle-ground State (except North Carolina). If the election was held today Obama would walk back into the White House. A lot of this is due to the attack ads.
I disagree.. The electoral polls show Romney in sight of the 270 needed and, in the here and now, Romney is up 4 or 5 of the battleground states...
If the election were held today, we would likely have President Romney....
The fact is Romney is a lousy candidate, his record is awful and the more voters find out about him the worse they like him. If Republicans had put forward a strong candidate, with a solid plan (based on popular demands) Obama would have a fight; instead they put forward a weak candidate whose only plans and stances are polling very badly and one who will have serious issues connecting with those disgruntled voters out there who may be considering voting for a change..
I actually agree with you on this..
Romney isn't the best (by far) that this country has to offer.
But then, what does that say about Obama when Romney is catching up and, in the battleground states, passing Obama???
If Obama can barely hold his own (and in some places, fail to hold his own) against someone as allegedly flawed as Romney...
What does that say about Obama??
Or, more accurately, what does that say about how Americans feel about Obama??
By the bi...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Don't worry.. You get used to it. :D
Michale.....
I'm taking a wait and see approach to the Bain thing. Either the Obama campaign has something/knows something or they are bluffing. Seems like a dangerous game, but hey it is the silly season. But to salaries of CEO's it really depends on if they are a founder or not. Steve Jobs when he was alive/CEO of Apple took home a dollar a year in salary, where as Tim Cook who took over makes something like 1.6 million a year in salary. Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page and quite a few others also get $1 a year in salary. Warren Buffet gets $100,000 in salary. So it really depends on a lot of factors. Is the SEC filing purely salary or total compensation? And what were his filings for the years before?
Michale [42]
Your fantasy scenario is laughable. If you swear, under oath, that you are President, CEO and Sole stockholder in Federal and state affidavits for three-years there is no way under the sun you are not responsible for what the business does even if you were on leave of absence. Romney is lieing plain and simple.
there is no way under the sun you are not responsible for what the business does even if you were on leave of absence.
Says who? You?
Michael [45],
I've given concrete verifiable examples of your bias, you respond with unsupported accusations, projection and an attempt to change the subject. So I decline to accept your irrelevant "challenge."
As for Fox, don't watch it, had to Google the site; the current headline Parents of little lemonade entrepreneurs find Obama's small biz advice leaves sour taste
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/17/lemonade-lessons-small-ones-sour-on-obama-small-biz-advice/ just happens to be opinion being presented as news. Funny how that works.
LD,
Romney is lieing plain and simple.
Then why isn't he being prosecuted for a felony???
Check the factcheck.org link..
Everything you and Obama are claiming has already been totally decimated there.
Those are the facts. All you have is Obama spin..
The Bain angle simply does not have any legs. It's alienating the very people Obama NEEDS to win the election...
I'll check the Lemonade Story in the morning...
Hittin' the sack now...
Michale.....
Michale [48],
Nothing in your supposed "fact check" offers anything factual to refute the simple truth that the official record attested to by Romney supports the Obama contention that either he lied on his submissions which is a felony(whether one is indicted and convicted or not, by the way,) or he's lieing now. Your so-called Fact-checkers simply deny the allegation with no corroboration at all.
Apparently, like you yourself, actual facts are irrelevant to your "fact-checkers."
David [41],
I agree.
Chris1962 [52],
You're still clueless about business. You actually believe the President, CEO, and sole stockholder for three-years on paper somehow isn't responsible for what his company did?! Priceless!
Michale [51,
Almost forgot to reply to this bit of nonsense. If Romney lied in his affidavits its a felony and probably (I'm no lawyer) beyond the statute of limitations. But the Obama camp isn't saying Romney lied in his affidavits, they're saying the affidavits were true and Romney is lieing now.
Romney is the one claiming he lied in his affidavits! — Do try to keep up!
You're still clueless about business. You actually believe the President, CEO, and sole stockholder for three-years on paper somehow isn't responsible for what his company did?! Priceless!
To this day, Bain doesn't have a CEO. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, or think you're making. The company is perfectly capable of being run by managing directors. Yet it somehow wasn't capable of that when Romney took a leave of absence? Sorry, but I think you're projecting your own business-cluelessness, as usual.
My apologies,
I misspoke. Romney says he didn't lie on his 1999 - 2002 affidavits, an he isn't saying he's lying now; he's saying he used his time machine to "retire retroactively" making him unresponsible retroactively.
You really just can't make this stuff up!
IOW, he took a leave of absence, thinking he would return. And when he decided not to return, he changed his LOA date to his formal retirement date. Big whoop.
Chris1962,
You keep trying to carry Romney's water with supposition, semantics, and inferences. My point is that no matter who is making the day-to-day decisions if you're President, CEO, and sole shareholder you are responsible for whatever they do.
Whether you're on leave or not people in business delegate all the time but delegation does not relieve you of responsibility. The reason Romney signed those affidavits and not someone else is that he was responsible.
How he chose to carry out his responsibilities doesn't matter. If he picked someones else to do most of the work doesn't matter. Romney's now claiming he wasn't the one responsible for what Bain did after 1998 and that is simply, demonstrably, a lie. And that is the fact which the Obama campaign is pointing out and which you and Michale and Romney are trying to spin.
You keep trying to carry Romney's water with supposition, semantics, and inferences.
Good lord. Change "Romney's" to "Obama's" and you just described precisely what you're doing.
My point is that no matter who is making the day-to-day decisions if you're President, CEO, and sole shareholder you are responsible for whatever they do.
Says who? You? When you leave others in charge, they're the folks who are in charge in your absence. "Leave of absence." Get it?
Romney's now claiming he wasn't the one responsible for what Bain did after 1998 and that is simply, demonstrably, a lie.
Because YOU'VE decided that a CEO can't take a leave of absence and have others run the place while he's gone? Really? If one is still in charge during a leave of absence, doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of a leave of absence? And does this actually have to be explained to the Left?
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/dark-knight-rises-new-bane-photo.jpg
Get it ... buahahahahahhahahahahhhhh
(Sorry, folks. It's been a long day ... :) )
Whether you're on leave or not people in business delegate all the time but delegation does not relieve you of responsibility. The reason Romney signed those affidavits and not someone else is that he was responsible.
Well said ... LewDan.
What I don't understand is ... if Bain is no big deal as certain folks here keep claiming it isn't ... why not just be proud of it? Own it. Be responsible for it and quit dancing around.
Yeah, Hollywood's trying to help Obama by naming Batman's evil nemisis "Bane." That's sure to make folks forget all about that 8.2% unemployment, 1.9% growth, and $15.6T debt.
You mean the "Bane" that first appeared in a batman comic in 1993? Sounds more coincidence than plot...
Yeah, must just be one of those timely Hollywood coincidences.
More likely political opportunism as the villain in the script is decided on before the script is written and the movie shot. They can't just change the name of a villain midstream, a batman movie has to be true to the cannon.
Yeah, must just be a total coincidence that the movie was scheduled to break a couple of months before the election, with "Bane" and the evil baddie.
Yes, coincidence. The rough outline of the script was completed in December 2008. Shooting happened last summer which means it was known that Bane was the baddie long before the primary season started when you consider casting, scouting and all the other fun stuff that needs to be done in movie production.
Actually I doubt this will gain traction but if it does Romney should probably try to own it. Bane is a bad ass muscular genius. In much the same way the Terminator only helped Schwarzenegger in his run for governor, it would improve his image greatly if played right...
Well, you certainly know much more about Nolan's Batman franchise than I. I guess the "Bane" name is one of those happy accidents. I heard the movie isn't particularly great, so it doesn't sound like anything that will "gain traction," as you say, although I wouldn't put it past Team-O to try to exploit it to O's benefit somehow.
It just hit me...
The Left and their "Romney was CEO of Bain past 1999" sounds an awful lot like Sheriff Joe and his "Obama's Birth Certificate Is A Fraud"...
Funny thing is, there is a lot more FACTS that show Sheriff Joe is right than shows that the Left is right...
Michale.....
LD
Re: 59
Iddn't it funny how ya'all will swear by factcheck.org when it says what you want to hear..
But when it shows your Exalted One for the liar and hypocrite that he is???
All of the sudden "they don't check their facts"...
And you call ME blindly partisan???!! :D
The fact of the matter is, facts don't matter to the Left... Ya'all simply follow two rules..
1. Oh Great Exalted One Obama is ALWAYS right.
2. If Oh Great Exalted One Obama is ever wrong, refer to rule #1.
Still waiting for you (or anyone.. Let's make this a group thing :D) to point to ANY comment that they have made that supports the Right over the Left..
ANY comment...
{{{chhiirrrppp}}} {{{cccchhhhhiiiirrrrrpppppp}}}
No???
So, who is the political atheist and who isn't?? :D
Michale.....
Let me ask ya'all one question..
If Bain is so evil for outsourcing jobs, why is Team Obama taking money from Bain???
Once again, Team Obama shows complete and utterly blatant hypocrisy...
And ya'all support that to the hilt...
Michale.....
LD,
The ONLY evidence you have that Romney actually ran Bain after 1999 is a statement that Bain made *IN* 1999 that Romney "INTENDED" to stay on at Bain and run things while simultaneously running the Olympics...
That's it. That's all you and Team Obama has.
A statement of intent..
But, as the facts show, Romney never fulfilled that intent because the Olympics took up all of his time...
Face it, Bain/Romney is the Left's Birther movement...
At least the Forged BC crowd actually has some facts and eyewitness testimony to back their case up.
Team Obama doesn't have squat but innuendo, rumor and out of context half-statements..
Michale...
As far as your Lemonade stand story??
Hard news??? Do you SERIOUSLY consider kids opening a Lemonade Stand as NEWS!???
It's an opinion piece wrapped up in a Human Interest story...
I would also point out that the thrust of the story is ALL government entities, "local, state and federal"....
You're going to have to do better than that.
Find me a NEWS story on FNC that is actually an opinion piece...
Would you like me to do the same for all the other MSM outlets?? I don't think CW would appreciate the hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of links I could post.. :D
Let's face reality here. The Left is just pissy about FNC because they are so popular..
It's envy, pure and simple...
Michale.....
Hahahahahah ... Chris1962, you must be right. It's a liberal conspiracy!!!!!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/17/limbaugh-bain/
Hahahahahahahahahhahahaahhhhhahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhh
This just gets funnier and funnier ...
-David
"Laugh it up, fuzzball"
-Han Solo, STAR WARS IV
:D
Guess who will be getting the last laugh on 7 Nov?? :D
Remember. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.
"Of course, I'm paranoid! Everyone's trying to kill me!"
-Garak, DEEP SPACE NINE
Michale......
Aww, c'mon, Michale.
Ya gotta admit, thinking that the Batman character Bane is a liberal conspiracy is ... ummm ... a little out there.
Even for Rush ... and that's saying something!
-David
Ya gotta admit, thinking that the Batman character Bane is a liberal conspiracy is ... ummm ... a little out there.
Yes, I do agree that it's somewhat ridiculous to think that the Left actually planned that far ahead... The Left can barely plan next week.. :D
On the other hand, I think it's also ridiculous, and even MORE so, that Democrats are trying to make the new Batman movie an indictment of Romney..
I mean, com'on! Obama/Biden as "The Dynamic Duo"??
SERIOUSLY!!???
It REEKS of desperation...
Michale.....
I mean, com'on! Obama/Biden as "The Dynamic Duo"??
Really? I hadn't seen that. Ahahahahahahhahhahhhaaaahahahhhhhaaaa.
That's funny too.
Now I'm picturing Biden in the old Robin outfit :)
No one needs that!
-David
RE: [53] Michale:
Thanks for the welcome :)
"If the election were held today, we would likely have President Romney...."
I think you are ignoring the facts on this one. Here are the real-clear-politics battleground states and running poll averages:
Colorado – Obama 2.9
Florida – Obama 0.4
Iowa – Obama 1.3
Michigan – Obama 1.8
Missouri – Romney 3.0
Nevada – Obama 5.3
New Hampshire – Obama 5.3
North Carolina – Romney 1.2
Ohio – Obama 3.8
Oregon – Obama 8.0
Pennsylvania – Obama 7.8
Virginia – Obama 2.0
Wisconsin – Obama 4.4
Like I said, if the election was held to today Obama would walk into the White House. Given the weak unemployment figures (which will get better) I think his campaign will be really worried about this - if he is performing this badly when the employment numbers aren't great what on earth is he going to do when they get better later in the year?
I am glad you agree Romney is a weak candidate in many ways. My personal view is a lot of the stronger candidates did not realise Obama would be so vulnerable this year, otherwise they would've thrown their hat in the ring.
I also believe that if McCain were running this year (and didn't pick Sarah Palin) Obama would be a one-term President. Republicans picking Romney was a great result for Obama (although their choices were limited).
As for the running Bain after 1999 scenario, the whole argument seems quite silly to me. If he owned Bain and signed off on all their filings he has to take responsibility for their actions.
The idea that an owner isn't responsible for the business they own is laughable. If Romney didn't like what management were doing, he could replace them - it doesn't matter if he was managing the affairs of the business (it seems quite clearly he wasn't and was managing the Olympics) - as OWNER he has oversight of the management and their responsibilities. This is how the business world has and always will work, right up to listed companies where shareholders meet once a year to vote and discuss the performance of management.
It is akin to an audit. How audits work in practice is that a team of management to junior members perform the audit. At the end the Partner (owner) comes out and reviews the audit papers and signs off on the audit. If the audit was later found to be improperly conducted or misinformation is found that the audit missed, the partner is responsible! He can't say 'well I just signed off on the audit, I wasn't responsible for the day to day runnings of the audit' lol.
The argument about whether he was managing the company is moot; he was owner and CEO - thus responsible for overseeing management and therefore the decisions made by the company.
Now I'm picturing Biden in the old Robin outfit :)
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.. :D
Michale......
Hahaha I just read the comments about the character Bane in Batman being a liberal conspiracy. HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAA that's amazing. That's really desperate now.
So basically people are arguing that back in 1993 when DC Comics created the character Bane as a Batman villain they had predicted that 19 years later a guy would run for President who ran a company called Bain. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA amazing.
Not everyone is a Batman expert, tough as that may be to believe, michty.
That's really desperate now.
No more desperate than ignoring immigration laws to create millions of new voters.
No more desperate than feeding the public a total BS story to suit a political agenda..
No more desperate than spending over $100 million dollars in a vain attempt to get the American people to forget about the incumbents totally crappy record on the economy...
If it's desperation you seek, there are plenty of examples from BOTH sides of the political spectrum..
Which simply proves my point.. AGAIN...
There is little difference between the Right and the Left insofar as the methods they employ...
"Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
-Yarnek, STAR TREK, The Savage Curtain
Michale.....
President Obama's jobs panel missing in action
President Barack Obama’s Jobs Council hasn’t met publicly for six months, even as the issue of job creation dominates the 2012 election.
At this point, the hiatus — which reached the half-year mark Tuesday — might be less awkward than an official meeting, given the hornet’s nest of issues that could sting Obama and the council members if the private-sector panel gets together....
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78637.html
RE: [92] "There is little difference between the Right and the Left insofar as the methods they employ..."
I agree a little. Except the left use more facts to support their arguments than the right. The right more often revert to pure propaganda (like saying Bane is a liberal conspiracy!).
Regarding the rest of your points:
(1) The immigration rule Obama promoted isn't new, it has been his policy for a long time.
(2) I don't think it's a BS story, see my comments on this in [88].
(3) It is pretty clear by now that both candidates are going to try and run mainly on the other's record, arguing whose is less worse. As I mentioned, I believe Romney is such a weak candidate that he will lose this battle.
Mitchy6,
As for the running Bain after 1999 scenario, the whole argument seems quite silly to me. If he owned Bain and signed off on all their filings he has to take responsibility for their actions.
That's just it. He didn't!!!
For all intents and purposes, Romney left Bain in 1999 and there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that Romney was involved in ANY decision making at Bain after his departure...
The argument about whether he was managing the company is moot; he was owner and CEO - thus responsible for overseeing management and therefore the decisions made by the company.
No he was not.. He was completely and unequivocally divorced from ANYTHING going on at Bain...
It's like if a couple divorces and the husband runs up a huge amount of debt on their old credit that the wife had already taken her name off of..
Is the wife responsible for what the husband does with the credit card two years later??
Of course not...
This is simply a desperate attempt by Team Obama to take the focus off of Obama's outsourcing..
Where do NASA astronauts launch from???
Further, if Bain is such an evil company, why does Team Obama accept MILLIONS in donations from Bain?? Why are several higher ups in Obama's administration former Bain people??
Can't you see you are being played!???
Newsflash for you. Obama doesn't walk on water. Obama is NOT always right.. Obama CAN'T part the seas with a wave of his hand.
This hysterical and religious devotion to Obama exhibited by the Left is becoming downright scary.
What's the Left going to do when Obama loses the election?? Storm Washington DC and install His Almighty Lordship and God, King Barack the First???
Michale......
RE: [93]
I'm glad he appears to be disbanding this 'business panel'. To be honest I think when you get elected on promises of changing things up and then you set up quarterly meetings with the top businessmen on how they can improve their profits, at the cost of regulation, you are not living up to your policies but just doing the same thing as other Presidents.
Once again, read the FactCheck article..
Ya'all know FactCheck, right?? It's the website the Left *swears* by.... When it says what the Left likes...
Michale......
Michale [78]
Your so-called fact-check cite never offered a single reason to substantiate their opinion. Call me crazy but I think fact-checkers need to use facts!
I agree a little. Except the left use more facts to support their arguments than the right. The right more often revert to pure propaganda (like saying Bane is a liberal conspiracy!).
Sorry, but I gots to call BS on this one..
The Left AND the Right only uses the facts when it suits their argument...
There is absolutely NO evidence to support the claim that the Left uses facts more than the Right.
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada...
Regarding the rest of your points:
(1) The immigration rule Obama promoted isn't new, it has been his policy for a long time.
Again, BS... If it was the rule "for a long time" why did Obama do a special presser in the Rose Garden???
Yes, Obama (all presidents) have always had "prosecutorial discretion".. But no president has ever invoked it for so political a reason. No president has ever invoked it SOLELY to win re-election..
So, what would you have said if Bush had instructed his DOJ not to pursue certain Anti-Trust cases against corporations in order to secure campaign contributions..
What would you have said?? You would have flipped yer lid! :D
(2) I don't think it's a BS story,
That's your right, to be sure.
But the facts (and FactCheck.Org) say it IS a BS story...
It is pretty clear by now that both candidates are going to try and run mainly on the other's record, arguing whose is less worse. As I mentioned, I believe Romney is such a weak candidate that he will lose this battle.
Again, I respect your opinion..
However Romney's record is "sterling" according to President Clinton..
Of the two, it's clear to any politically objective person that Obama has the MUCH worse record.. I mean, when a president is compared to Jimmy Carter **AND** Richard Nixon, ya gotta admit... He don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.. :D
Michale.....
RE: [95]
I have no devotion to Obama, I think he has done many things worth examining and criticising (sadly, the Republicans won't discuss these things but prefer to make up stuff instead). Your examples of Corporate influence are where I would start (but Republicans can't argue this point because they are worse).
I think you (and many others) are confusing MANAGEMENT and OWNERSHIP. The Obama team is also stretching this, hence why their claims were found to be stretching the truth.
I am not arguing that Romney was involved in anyway whatsoever in the management of Bain from 1999-2002. He was clearly on a leave of absence and working on the Olympics. I am in full agreement that he was not involved in any decision making.
However, he was still OWNER of Bain from 1999-2002. This is an indisputable FACT.
Owners have ultimate responsibility for management and their decisions. If they don't like how the company is being managed, they can fire the management. This is what happens in all companies right up to listed companies. This is what the SEC filings indicate - when you sign a set of accounts you are signing to say 'I have examined these accounts and approve of the information inside'.
Like I said the issue is pretty clear cut once you understand the separation of owners and management (a key concept in business). I have never seen anybody in business anywhere argue that OWNERS are not ultimately responsible for the actions of the companies they own. This is why they alone have the power to fire management if they are not happy.
Michale [80],
The evidence that Romney actually ran Bain after 1998 is three more years of Federal and state corporate filings in which he swore under oath that he was running Bain. And because signing those filing was in and of itself "doing work for Bain." So the only thing actually debatable would be how much work for Bain he did during those years.
But as a former LEO I'm sure you wouldn't consider three-years worth of signed and notarized confessions to be proof.—You're a winger and nothing that contradicts what you choose to believe is a "fact."
If he owned Bain and signed off on all their filings he has to take responsibility for their actions.
He doesn't have to take responsibility for their decisions. If you hand the reins over, and give management and decion-making responsibilities to others, that means YOU'RE no involved in the management decisons and actions that transpire; they are. That's the entire purpose behind relinquishing control and going on leave. Stunning that this even has to be explained to the Left.
RE: [97] and [99]
Read my comments in [100]. I agree with the fact check. Obama's team arguing Romney was involved in management because he signed off SEC filings is them (and many others) confusing OWNERSHIP and MANAGEMENT.
I could perform detailed studies to back up my claim that the right uses more propaganda and lies than the left, but unfortunately I don't work in this full time and have better things to spend my time on. So I will clarify my point and say this is personal opinion. Most of the worst ones I notice are saying that Democrats are the party of spending and big Government (etc) when in fact they have balanced the books, ran considerably less deficits and had stronger economies than Republican Presidents (this I can prove with facts if you like?). Like I said before, there are plenty of true things to criticise Obama and the Democrats for but Republicans instead prefer to make up rhetoric as it sounds better.
On the other points:
(1) Obama tried to pass the DREAM Act in 2009, 2010 AND 2011. It was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans each time. So yes, the Presidential change he made was something he has supported for a long-time. And yes, I agree it is HEAVILY due to political factors the timing. But you can't argue that he has just made this up out the blue, it is his long term policy.
(3) I guess time will tell. I think Romney's record in all 3 areas (Bain, Olympics and Governor) is awful. Obama will run on this, plus his achievements. I think Romney is such a poor candidate that, even with Obama being so vulnerable, he will lose.
I am not arguing that Romney was involved in anyway whatsoever in the management of Bain from 1999-2002. He was clearly on a leave of absence and working on the Olympics. I am in full agreement that he was not involved in any decision making.
If you agree that Romney was not involved in any decision making, then he cannot be held responsible for the decisions Bain made..
I mean, is Obama responsible for the shooting rampage committed by Major Hasan at Fort Hood?? Obama is CnC so, in theory, Obama is responsible.. But no one would think of holding Obama responsible for Hasan's attacks...
However, he was still OWNER of Bain from 1999-2002. This is an indisputable FACT.
He was no more "owner" of Bain than you are "owner" of companies you own stock in..
For all intents and purposes, Romney and Bain became two separate entities in Feb of 99. Anything Bain did after that date is on Bain.. NOT on Romney...
You still haven't answered my questions.
If Bain is so evil, why is Obama accepting donations from them??
Why does Obama have Bain people in his administration??
Aren't THEY responsible for the out-sourcing of Bain as well???
Michale.....
RE: [102]
One of the privileges of OWNERSHIP is that if you don't like what management are doing you get rid of them. This is a fact.
In that sense, if Romney wasn't happy with what management were doing he could've fired them. This is the ULTIMATE responsibility which lies with the owners.
Management conduct business based on what they believe the aims of the company are, as dictated by the owners who set it up. They know they have to do this or they will be fired.
This is business101. You learn this on the first day of any business class. I presume you don't work in business?
Read the FACTS...
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/
Its all there, in black and white... Well, there's a little Cerulean Blue in there.. :D (a kewpie to whomever can guess the reference...)
Michale.....
RE: [104]
"If you agree that Romney was not involved in any decision making, then he cannot be held responsible for the decisions Bain made."
Nope, you are confusing why businesses exist and the aims of management of the business (to conduct the business in the manner prescribed by the owner). Like I said in [105] this is business101.
"He was no more "owner" of Bain than you are "owner" of companies you own stock in.."
Exactly! Now you're getting it! If management in the companies I own stock in are doing things I don't like I turn up at the AGM and I vote them out! This is why shares include the right to vote. This is business101 - management conduct their business for the owners and not the other way around! If owners are not happy, they get rid of them.
"You still haven't answered my questions.
If Bain is so evil, why is Obama accepting donations from them??
Why does Obama have Bain people in his administration??
Aren't THEY responsible for the out-sourcing of Bain as well???"
I absolutely have answered this. Quoting myself from [100]: 'I have no devotion to Obama, I think he has done many things worth examining and criticising (sadly, the Republicans won't discuss these things but prefer to make up stuff instead). Your examples of Corporate influence are where I would start (but Republicans can't argue this point because they are worse).'
Michale [81],
The lemonade piece was on exactly the same topic as the link you provided.—Except...
The piece agreeing with Obama was was in the opinion section.
The piece disagreeing with Obama was the headliner on the front-page with a color photograph.
Now you may think that who disagree with Obama is clearly stating the facts though you're welcome to turn to the opinion of those who disagree, but that's not my idea of fair and balanced. That's my idea of promoting an agenda.
And if I have to go to other sources to get the facts in order to determine if a piece is news or opinion i see no reason not to just go to the other sources. And since Faux News puts opinion pieces on the front-page as news Fox cites are worthless because they may just be unsubstantiated opinion, not factual news.
But again, being a winger, I understand why you'd fail to see the difference. You want to be lied to. You're not interested in anything that challenges your prejudices, you just want your prejudice validated.
Lol I don't know how many times I have to say this.
I agree with fact-check! Obama's claim that Romney was involved in the management of the company was WRONG. Totally false. I agree 100% that Romney was not involved in MANAGING the company.
Quoting from fact-check: 'We have never disputed that Romney remained the owner of Bain while he was running the Olympics committee.'
The fact that Romney was the OWNER, and thus ultimately responsible for the performance of management, is confirmed by fact-check.
"Now you may think that those who disagree with Obama are clearly..."
I've got to start paying more attention.
He doesn't have to take responsibility for their decisions.
I believe that's what "own" means. You are responsible. You own.
That's what's so funny about this whole mess. Romney is trying to distance himself from the company he owned.
When you own a house, you are responsible for what happens to that house.
I want a President who is willing to own his decisions. Not to throw their hands up in the air and say "well, I was off doing something else".
This is perhaps what bugs me most about conservatives. They never admit to owning anything. They blame everything on someone else. Liberals, illegal immigrants, Al Gore, gays, Batman, Jimmy Carter, women, the French, the poor, the liberal media, Obama, and on and on and on.
Conservatives have set the agenda of our country for the last 30 years. Trickle down theory and deregulation. These also have to be the same things which caused our financial crisis.
The day they own this is the day I may start gaining respect.
-David
michty6 [109]
You're trying to split hairs to the point of absurdity. See michty6 [105]. If you have oversight authority you are the one managing. Choosing not to exercise that authority is still managing.
The Chief Executive Officer and the President are senior management positions. Executing corporate filings is a management function. The act of filing them is managing.
The filings are proof that Romney swore under oath that he was the manager. They are written proof that he was fulfilling management duties.—And you agree with the "fact-checkers," for no logical reason at all, that the written evidence doesn't matter, that it isn't proof?!
Ridiculous.
Michy,
I agree with fact-check! Obama's claim that Romney was involved in the management of the company was WRONG. Totally false. I agree 100% that Romney was not involved in MANAGING the company.
My bust.. I missed that.. Mea Culpa.... :D
The fact that Romney was the OWNER, and thus ultimately responsible for the performance of management, is confirmed by fact-check.
So, is Obama personally responsible for the actions of each and every individual serving in the US Armed Forces??
Using your reasoning he is...
So, if Romney launches an ad, attacking Obama for being the guy who went into Fort Hood and gunned down those people, that would be a legitimate accusation..
Hell, forget the military. As President of America, is Obama personally responsible for the actions of each and every American??
Again, using your reasoning, he is...
But we both know that in BOTH cases, it's utterly ridiculous to hold the President personally responsible for actions he had absolutely NO CONTROL over..
We can agree on that, right??
In that vein, it's EQUALLY ridiculous for Team Obama (and ya'all) to hold Romney PERSONALLY responsible for the outsourcing Bain did...
So, NOW, your argument has to become, "Well, Romney shouldn't have been associated with such an evil company that kills American jobs!!!"
And THAT would be a legitimate argument...
To which, *I* would respond that Obama is ALSO associated with such an "evil company" by virtue of having Bain uppity ups in his Administration and by taking Bain campaign donations...
Thereby proving, once again, there is really little difference between the Left and the Right. :D
"Cue applause..."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS, The Return PT1
:D
Michale.....
David [111]
But... But, David!
We all know Republicans are the "personal responsibility" party!
LD,
Here's how I look at things..
On the one side, you have Fact Check.. They have professionals that have researched the facts, talked to the people involved and brought in experts to dissect the facts in detail...
And, MOST IMPORTANT, they have absolutely NO POLITICAL dog in this hunt.. They are 1000% neutral..
NOW....
On the other side, we have Team Obama, whose (political) life is at stake. As has been amply proven, they will say anything, do anything to win this election....
Given this....
WHO is more believable?? Who has more credibility in this issue... Who has more reason to lie and obfuscate???
The choice is clear. Team Obama is wrong, pure and simple. Hell, even many Democrats say Obama is wrong...
Michale....
Michale [113]
So Obama isn't responsible for the Economy? He didn't personally fire anyone did he? He didn't personally cause the financial crisis. He didn't personally evict anyone.
And Obama isn't responsible for the deficit. He didn't personally spend any of that money either.
In fact, like your bud Romney, President Obama isn't responsible for any of the things you've been carping about—So what's your beef with Obama?
Michale [115]
No what you have is public records available to anyone who wants to read them versus the opinion of people who are saying what you want to hear.—So, of course, their opinion means more to you than mere facts.
RE: [113]
"So, is Obama personally responsible for the actions of each and every individual serving in the US Armed Forces??
Using your reasoning he is..."
Nope. You are confusing the President of the United States with being the owner and CEO of a company. The structure of the United States Government is a LITTLE different than the structure of a company lol. For one, the 'owner' of the United States is elected in set periods and has no capital injection to the business.
Now let's say, for a better analogy, you are the sole owner of a large Corporation with many levels (like the US Government) and this company does something illegal or unethical. Are you responsible? In the world of business, yes! When a trader loses $4 billion the CEO of the company usually resigns. He doesn't say 'well it was another manager/trader who was responsible and, even know my job is to oversea management, I am not responsible'! This happens in business on almost a daily basis: a CEO resigns because of the actions of his company. A good example would be that after the banking crisis almost every single bank lost their CEO.
Do I agree with this? Not really. But this is how the business world works. It is a cut-throat world where (like politics) they love to assign blame to one person even though there are usually many levels removing him from responsibility.
But Obama attacking Romney because a COMPANY HE OWNED outsourced jobs is of course a valid criticism! There is a huge difference between this and Corporate involvement in politics - that is completely separate issue - you can't set-up companies, be the sole 100% owner and not take responsibility for the actions of your company!
In addition to [118] is why back in [88] I said the whole Bain argument was silly. The fact of the matter is that Romney owned Bain until 2002. He was the 100% sole owner, with 100% of voting shares. He even started the company himself it was HIS company. Therefore for him to say he is not responsible for anything they did from 1999-2002 is, quite frankly, laughable.
He doesn't say 'well it was another manager/trader who was responsible and, even know my job is to oversea management
That's just the point: It ISN'T the job of someone on a leave of absence to oversee management; it's the complete opposite of that. A person on a leave of absence relinquishes all that to another party (or parties). That's the entire reason and purpose for taking a leave of absence. The Left likes to conveniently gloss over that little critical piece of reality.
RE: [120]
"That's just the point: It ISN'T the job of someone on a leave of absence to oversee management; it's the complete opposite of that. A person on a leave of absence relinquishes all that to another party (or parties). That's the entire reason and purpose for taking a leave of absence."
I have mentioned this before but you don't understand how business works. The job of the OWNER of a company is to oversea management. This is permanently their job until they RELINQUISH OWNERSHIP. In smaller companies, they do this day-to-day and often the owner is the manager. In larger companies (like those owned by stockholders) they do this annually (at the AGM) or bi-annual/quarterly shareholder/stockholder meetings. Owners receive audited accounts so they can assess management - this is the purpose of having audits (so management can't lie to owners and say 'everything is great'!).
Regardless of the structure of the business, the owner overseas management and management perform the business based on the owners requests. THIS IS HOW BUSINESSES WORK.
Here’s an analogy for you:
I set up a company and the aim of the company is to help animals who have lived a hard life.
In 1999, I leave the company in the hands of management and go off to do some other work. At the end of 1999 I meet with management to sign off on their SEC filings and ask how the business I own is going (usually called an AGM ;)). The management tell me ‘business is good’. I say ‘hold on, I see here that animals are being beaten under our care, is this true?’ Management say ‘yes, we changed the aim of the company from helping animals to beating animals – I hope that’s ok with you?’
At this point I have two choices: Fire the management and install new management who won’t beat animals, making this clear in the SEC filings, where owner-management disagreements must be filed. OR say ‘Sure whatever, let me just sign off on the SEC filings, sign off on the AGM minutes and I’ll get back to my other job…’
If I make the latter choice and then later run for President and am attacked for the way this company was run I can’t say ‘actually I never ran the company that was the management’. Business does not work that way lol.
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot and it could be because I work in and have studied business. This is a good page to explain the role and responsibility of the Board of Directors, CEO and Management.
For reference in Bain the owner (sold shareholder) was Romney, the Board of Directors has one person - the CEO (also Romney) and then there is the management (which includes CEO usually, but as has been pointed out Romney wasn't involved in management during 1999-2002): http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/022803.asp#axzz20zS05a8y
"The role of the board is to monitor the managers of a corporation, acting as an advocate for stockholders. In essence, the board of directors tries to make sure that shareholders' interests are well served."
David: I believe that's what "own" means. You are responsible. You own.
Except that owning and managing are not one and the same thing. And an owner on a leave of absence does not manage; they hand that off precisely because they don't have the time to manage. But, hey, don't let any of those realities stop O and Left from pouring millions upon millions of media dollars into beating this dead horse. At the end of the day, O — the guy who wasn't on a leave of absence — is still gonna have to answer for +8% unemployment, 1.9% growth and a $15.6T debt.
57% Say Venture Capital Firms Better Job Creators Than Government Programs
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/july_2012/57_say_venture_capital_firms_better_job_creators_than_government_programs
LD
So Obama isn't responsible for the Economy? He didn't personally fire anyone did he? He didn't personally cause the financial crisis. He didn't personally evict anyone.
No, Obama is not responsible for the economy prior to 2009..
After 2009, he became America's CEO and after THAT, he was responsible..
But, let's say that, in Feb of 2009, Obama became ill after a stroke and was confined to a bed for a year... In March of 2011, the 25th Amendment was invoked and Joesph Biden {{{cringe}}} became President...
Using your argument Obama is "personally" responsible for what Biden did in April of 2010???
You see how silly your argument is??
mitchy,
But Obama attacking Romney because a COMPANY HE OWNED outsourced jobs is of course a valid criticism!
If true, then Romney attacking Obama for taking campaign contributions from Bain and hiring Bain execs is ALSO a valid criticism..
BOTH criticisms may be technically accurate or theoretically true, but THAT doesn't change the fact that BOTH criticisms are silly..
But for Team Obama to make the ONE argument while ignoring their own connections with Bain is just downright and blatant hypocrisy....
But hay... At least we agree it's a silly attack.. :D
If that's all we can agree on, I am good with that. :D
Michale.....
LD,
So what's your beef with Obama?
You mean, other than looking me right in the eye and lying to me??
Other than con'ing me into voting for him???
Other than that, not a damn thing..
You see, that's the one thing about me you never seem to grasp..
My reasons for hating Obama are not political.. They're personal...
I don't like being con'ed.. I don't like being lied to...
Michale.....
But hay... At least we agree it's a silly attack.. :D
And, I am also constrained to point out that it's an attack that ONLY appeals to the Left..
The Left eat this crap up...
But it won't mean diddley squat to the Independents and NPAs..
Ya know, the ones who actually decide elections??
Michale.....
RE [125] Michale
If Obama actually took money from Bain then I agree this is a valid criticism. I am not sure this is the case though...
You want to use 'but Obama took money from a company which outsourced jobs' (which I don't believe is true) as an excuse when it is a completely unrelated issue. If you want to look at this issue - which party gets a lot of funding from Corporations who outsource jobs - I'd be happy to. I doubt Republicans would want to go down that road though...
On the actual issue we are discussing (Romney's businesses and business experience) the fact is Romney owned a company that outsourced jobs and he is selling himself as 'Mr Economy' and 'Mr Business', who knows how to create jobs. This evidence disputes that so is obviously completely relevant to vetting him as a candidate.
RE [126]
"I don't like being lied to..."
Then the choice of candidates for 2012 should be pretty easy for you. If you are looking for the more principled candidate who lies less then it will be the easiest choice ever for you come November...
Obama’s Top Bundler Jonathan Lavine Was In Charge of Bain During GST Steel Layoffs
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/oops-obamas-top-bundler-jonathan-lavine-was-in-charge-of-bain-during-gst-steel-layoffs/
Where's the hysteria!!!????
Where's the outrage!!!???
Oh, that's right..
It's Emperor Obama...
He gets a pass....
Michale.....
[127]
"57% Say Venture Capital Firms Better Job Creators Than Government Programs
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_empl"
Hahahaha amazing. My friend down the road said that he thinks Santa is real. But that doesn't impact the actual facts of the case at all lol.
I have mentioned this before but you don't understand how business works.
Yeah, I've just been in the business world for the past couple of decades, managing the marketing for some of the biggest corporations on the planet. I must've missed the part about how business works, because after all, you say so.
Here's how reality works: Romney was CEO "on paper." He had no day-to-day management involvement and no decision-making involvement. That was relinquished to a team of managing directors (which, to this day, runs the company, sans a CEO). And when SEC filing time arrived, where the owner had to sign papers, Romney signed papers. That's the extent of his involvement. And THAT'S how business works, regardless of how many fantasy meetings the Left creates in its collective head or how dedicated they are in trying to hawk their dismal spin, which is draining Team-O of millions and getting them nowhere, fast. But, by all means, continue trying to sell this turkey. It's not like the Left ever knows when to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
If Obama actually took money from Bain then I agree this is a valid criticism. I am not sure this is the case though...
See above... Great minds think alike.. :D
You want to use 'but Obama took money from a company which outsourced jobs' (which I don't believe is true) as an excuse when it is a completely unrelated issue. If you want to look at this issue - which party gets a lot of funding from Corporations who outsource jobs - I'd be happy to. I doubt Republicans would want to go down that road though...
Who gives a rat's ass what Republicans want?? I surely don't. I don't think you do either. :D
On the actual issue we are discussing (Romney's businesses and business experience) the fact is Romney owned a company that outsourced jobs and he is selling himself as 'Mr Economy' and 'Mr Business', who knows how to create jobs. This evidence disputes that so is obviously completely relevant to vetting him as a candidate.
And Obama was president when he outsourced our space program to the Russians. Obama was president when he gave grants and no interest loans to GE, a company that has outsourced 75% of it's work force...
So..... Explain why Obama is any better than Romney??
At least Romney has "sterling" accomplishments, according to President Clinton..
The only claim that Obama can make is that he hasn't TOTALLY destroyed the US Economy... He's saving THAT for his second term... :^/
Then the choice of candidates for 2012 should be pretty easy for you. If you are looking for the more principled candidate who lies less then it will be the easiest choice ever for you come November...
I agree...
Romney hasn't lied to me yet.. :D With Obama, I can always tell when he is lying. His lips are moving...
Yer right. The choice IS easy... :D
Michale.....
[129]
"Obama’s Top Bundler Jonathan Lavine Was In Charge of Bain During GST Steel Layoffa
Where's the hysteria!!!????
Where's the outrage!!!???
Oh, that's right..
It's Emperor Obama...
He gets a pass....
Michale....."
Come on Michale you are better than this. You're getting into Limbaugh Batman territory here with your stuff.
What do you think deserves hysteria/outrage, I'll give you a clue with some emphasis:
1. A guy - who donated money to Obama - previously worked at Bain, where he killed jobs during 1 deal.
2. A guy - RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT - actually STARTED AND SET-UP BAIN which killed and outsourced jobs during many, many deals making him incredibly rich.
Lol.
michty6,
I've come to realize that you, like many professionals are tripping over jargon with regard to fact-checkers.
You're applying a very specialized definition of management and mangers not a common-language "Webster's" definition. So I can see, now, why you say the fact-checkers are right. But Obama's people weren't making a technical argument. They were disputing the claim of Romney's lack of responsibility using plain English.
And, by your own admission, they were correct. Applying the same plain English definitions the fact-checkers are wrong. They can't have it both ways, it they're saying Obama lied based on a purely technical basis, that Romney didn't manage Bain after 1998 although he oversaw it as owner they have to say so or the entire piece, as in this case, is misleading.
You may think your definition of "management" is self-evident, Management 101, but it isn't. It's jargon, not the common definition. And that's why I don't accept the Fact-checkers opinion. Its inaccurate and misleading. On its face its untrue. Only in terms of your business jargon is it true.
This evidence disputes that so is obviously completely relevant to vetting him as a candidate.
Gotta love how the Left is suddenly concerned about vetting. Here's a thought: How about vetting Obama, since the swooning press corps — otherwise known as O's personal steno pool — conveniently neglected to do that, last time around?
1. A guy - who donated money to Obama - previously worked at Bain, where he killed jobs during 1 deal.
No.. A guy who BUNDLED millions of dollars in donations for Team Obama was an executive at Bain and ACTUALLY HAD A HAND in the job-killing that Obama wants to pin on Romney...
as opposed to...
A guy who totally divorced himself from Bain's activities, whose names was simply kept on the roster for paperwork purposes, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the actions of Bain..
So, on the one hand, we have Obama taking millions from a guy who actually had a hand in the VERY actions that Team Obama wants Americans to believe ROMNEY is totally and completely responsible for..
There's a word for people who do things like that...
Uh... wait, I just had it.. Oh ... hmmmmm... oh.. HERE it is...
HYPOCRITE
I'll tack on "liar" and "asshole" just for GPs.. :D
You can try to differentiate it all you want. You can analyze it to death and try to change what the definition if "is" is...
But when all is said and done, the facts are clear..
Romney had NO involvement with the actions of Bain and Obama takes money from Bain people and has former Bain execs working for him who actually had a direct hand in the very things that Obama is blaming Romney for....
You can spin that anyway want, but it simply doesn't change the facts...
Michale.....
Chris1962 [131]
No. on paper is mostly what modern business is all about. Contracts, deeds, leases, shares—hell, money! and verbal, but most especially, written contracts. Your bizarre contention that sworn corporate filings don't really mean anything because its just on paper proves once again your complete lack of understanding business.
It also doesn't say much for your ethics or respect for the law since, to you, perjury is no big deal.
Michale [136]
Bizarre. Hysterical and bizarre!
You've reached a new plateau.
Errr, Romney swore that he was the CEO and owner. And he was. Duh. So tell me where the so-called perjury comes in.
And, by all means, continue trying to sell this tortured spin campaign. I've never seen such a waste of campaign dollars in my life. Nobody knows how to form a circular firing squad like the Left.
[134] LD - I agree. I guess my point is that technically fact-check were correct and Obama wrong. But really the argument is silly since, as owner, criticising what the company he owned did is completely legitimate.
[135] You don't think Obama has been vetted lol. He ran for Senate, before oe of the longest Primaries ever (that was still going at this point) followed by an equally long and bitter Presidential campaign. Compared to Romney who went through a Governor campaign (a long time ago) and 1.5 primaries. The only people claiming Obama hasn't been 'vetted' are usually birthers or proponents of other ludicrous conspiracies...
[136] Michale I have no idea what you are seeing this through. I would say rose-tinted glasses but those probably aren't strong enough. You are talking about 2 completely separate issues:
(i) The business experience of a candidate running for Presidency, with this experience being a key element in his campaign
(ii) The business background of donators to Presidential campaigns.
To pool these together is completely NONSENSICAL lol. But if you really want to change the subject and discuss point (ii) I'd be very happy to. Let's analyse the business background of the major donators to both candidates. However, I get the feeling this is not a read Republicans want to go down lol.
I mean I don't know how you can STILL argue that Romney is not responsible for A COMPANY HE SET-UP AND OWNED during 1999-2002.
To argue Romney is not responsible for the business decisions made by a company he owned, yet Obama is responsible for the business decisions made by someone donating money to him is COMPLETELY LUDICROUS. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more hypocritical than what you are accusing the left of - it is straight out the page of Limbaugh. You raised many intelligent and thoughtful points on this page. But now I am starting to doubt your credentials if you seriously cannot see how ludicrous this is.
President Obama's rhetoric would suggest that he's against Bain (both Bain Capital, the investment firm, and Bain Consulting, the consulting firm, as he makes little distinction between the two Bains where Mitt Romney worked in the past). But Obama's own hiring practice suggests something a little different: His own budget director is a Bain guy who married a Bain gal.... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-budget-director-bain-guy-married-bain-gal_648652.html
You don't think Obama has been vetted lol. He ran for Senate, before oe of the longest Primaries ever (that was still going at this point) followed by an equally long and bitter Presidential campaign.
Yeah, and the swooning press corps didn't vet him; they regurgitated what Obama had written about himself. All this country knows about Obama is what he decided to tell the public, replete with the flowery fantasy love story of the gal from Kansas and the guy from Kenya — or the alchoholic polygymist from Kenya, whom the gal from Kansas divorced, as we LATER came to learn after O had safely made it into the White House. His first order of business? To seal all his records. So let's open up some records and learn the REAL story of Obama. Y'know, the parts he decided he didn't want the public to know about.
RE [142]
This 'not vetted' thing is absolute nonsense spewed by Fox. If you like Obama has released 12 years of tax returns. You can read them here: http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/. Happy hunting. I can remember when they analysed all his senate voted during the Clinton primary. You can google this quite easily.
He ran against both Clinton and McCain in 2007/2008. Clinton raised almost as much as him during the primaries. Between the money from both these thrown at him he has had more money spent AGAINST him than any other candidate in history . But no, let's through around the 'he's not been properly vetted' rhetoric with no facts to support it...
mitchy,
If you like Obama has released 12 years of tax returns. You can read them here: http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/. Happy hunting. I can remember when they analysed all his senate voted during the Clinton primary. You can google this quite easily.
How many school records has Obama released???
The Left went apeshit over Bush's school records and the Left also went apeshit about Romney being a "bully" in high school..
So, obviously, the Left feels VERY strongly about school records...
Except when it comes to Obama...
How strange, eh?? :D
he has had more money spent AGAINST him than any other candidate in history .
If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he spending MILLIONS to try and keep his past hidden???
Michale.....
Obama has been the LEAST vetted President in the history of this country..
Let's face facts. America was so orgasmic about electing a black man as president, to show the world that America has FINALLY growed up, that the normal vetting procedures were completely ignored..
If a white man of Obama's lack of qualifications and paper trail riddled with inconsistencies, "typos" and "mistakes" had been the candidate, he would have been laughed off the campaign trail...
These are the facts....
Michale.....
This 'not vetted' thing is absolute nonsense spewed by Fox.
The standard response every time the Left can't refute anything.
If you like Obama has released 12 years of tax returns. You can read them here:
Is that where I'm supposed to be able to find his life story and his scholastic records, which the press "corpse" somehow managed to forget to inquire about. In which section of his tax returns can I find his braniac SAT score, for starters? I'd also like to know how he got into Columbia. What were his grades? Did he have a sponsor? Percy Sutton seems to think he did: http://youtu.be/4EcC0QAd0Ug Who paid the tuition and living expenses? On which line of his tax returns can I find that information?
RE [144]
Michale, you have really started falling down a slippery slope in your last few comments. I mean now you are bordering on birther conspiracy nonsense.
Name any records that Romney has released that Obama hasn't (clue: Romney hasn't released and will not release any school records either - they went to the same school too)? Name any precedent on records set before that Obama has failed to follow (you can't invent new precedents when you don't like the guy - it comes across as a little racist)?
There is a pretty huge difference in Obama releasing 12 years of tax returns, based on the precedent set by ROMNEY'S FATHER, then asking Romney to do the same - compared to a bunch of nut jobs on the internet complaining that one candidate hasn't released tonnes of records they'd like to see based on their nut-job theories, when they never demand (nor has the other candidate released) the very same records...
RE [146]
"Is that where I'm supposed to be able to find his life story and his scholastic records, which the press "corpse" somehow managed to forget to inquire about. In which section of his tax returns can I find his braniac SAT score, for starters? I'd also like to know how he got into Columbia. What were his grades? Did he have a sponsor? Percy Sutton seems to think he did: http://youtu.be/4EcC0QAd0Ug Who paid the tuition and living expenses?"
If you can show where ANY. I mean ANY other candidate in the HISTORY OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES released all this information I will give you the point. If this is so common that shouldn't be too hard. Heck if you can even find Romney's official SAT score I will concede the point to you. It is ABSOLUTE propaganda nonsense to promote the idea that every single Presidential candidate has revealed the most intimate details of their lives and school records.
I mean you and Michale are really going down the birther-nut-job-bordering-on-racist lines of argument here...
I mean now you are bordering on birther conspiracy nonsense.
The Left's standard response whenever anyone dares to inquire into O's background. I'd like to know the so-called brainiac's SAT score. What's that make me? A schooler?
Chris1962 [139]
Okay... Now I'm confused!
How can Romney be CEO, for real, not "just on paper" and not be managing the company? And don't give me that "leave of absence" crap. If you're on leave of absence you're not fulfilling the job so he wouldn't be CEO which would make the filings perjury.
And if Romney was only CEO "on paper," but not really managing the company then he wasn't really CEO, which is perjury.
RE [149]
Ok Chris. If you can provide me with Romney's official SAT Score I WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY. You have my word.
Until you can do this I will indeed refer to you as a 'schooler' :)
Thank God McCain didn't win in 2008: we don't have his official SAT score, or his wedding license(s) or a complete history of his finances and how he supported himself his entire life. And his birth certificate is an old, photo-copied page clearly designed to make it easily forged.
We dodged a bullet, almost elected a candidate who hadn't been properly vetted lol.
If you can show where ANY. I mean ANY other candidate in the HISTORY OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES released all this information I will give you the point.
Err, plenty of candidates' scholastic information is out there. The Left has been pointing to Bush's records and quoting his grades for years. The Right has been countering with Gore's grades, which weren't exactly stellar, either. So where are Mr. Transparency's grades? On the campaign trail, he peddled himself as some kind of highly intelligent person, so why are his scholastic records sealed up, nice and tight? I get the funny feeling there's a reason for that. I think his self-branded "intelligence" persona is probably as bogus as his dreamy tale of the gal from Kansas and the guy from Kenya, otherwise know as pure bullsh*t that he sold to the American people, with the aid of the swooning press "corpse."
mitchy,
My point is simple. It's really so simple, it's easy to overlook..
The Left claims that, if Romney doesn't have anything to hide, why not release the tax records..
MY response is the same.. If Obama has nothing to hide, why not release the school records??
You can't demand transparency from the candidate you oppose but allow your candidate to keep things hidden.. Either BOTH candidates are transparent or BOTH are not...
As far as the claim of irrelevance for school records, the Left didn't think so during the Bush years. They Left didn't think so when they brought up Romney's alleged high school bullying..
Once again, you want it both ways.. But you can't have it both ways.. It's against the rules. :D
The Left has proven time and again that school records **ARE** relevant..
So, if Obama wants transparency from Romney, he needs to show transparency as well..
As far as your claim of Birther nonsense??
I have to give the Left credit where credit is due. They have succeeded in bullying the country so that any mention of the FACTS of Obama's false paper trail is met with scorn and ridicule...
But the scorn and ridicule simply hides the fact that there is NO rational reason for the inconsistencies of Obama's paper trail, save that they are forgeries...
NO OTHER rational explanation fits the facts...
By all means, pooh pooh it all way.. The facts WILL come out.... Hopefully within my lifetime, as I have added it to my Bucket List...
1. Global Warming Proved False (CHECK)
2. First Contact (Still Waiting)
3. Obama's Phony Paper Trail Blows Up In His Face (SOON)
:D
Michale.....
[150] LD - You can be CEO and not be managing the company. CEO doesn't have to be a management position, it can be a Board only position. I am perfectly happy to accept that he was not managing the company; I will not accept in anyway whatsoever assigning no blame or responsibility of the actions of a company to it's owner and CEO.
CB makes a VERY good point....
Ya'all claim that, since Romney is saying he's the GO TO guy to fix the economy, then his business records are relevant to show his claims..
The Left has passed off Obama as some high IQ brainiac who plays 12-Dimensional Chess in his spare time...
So, wouldn't his SCHOOL RECORDS be relevant???
"What's good for the goose is nobodies business but the ganders!!!"
-Ralph Furley, Threes Company
You want Romney to show his business/tax records to support his economic claims..
Yet, you want Obama to hide his scholastic records, even though his intelligence is one of the points he was elected on...
Once again, you are trying to have it both ways..
Michale.....
I will not accept in anyway whatsoever assigning no blame or responsibility of the actions of a company to it's owner and CEO.
Would you assign blame to the executives that actually had a hand in the outsourcing of jobs who are now working for Obama and giving Obama millions of dollars in contributions???
They actually did the dirty deed.. Why do they get a pass and the guy who didn't even do anything doesn't???
Michale.....
On another, somewhat related note...
Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama
http://politicker.com/2012/07/former-navy-seal-launches-pac-to-fight-obama/
You KNOW yer in deep kaa-kaa when you piss off Navy Seals...
And I thought USAF PJs were bad!!!! :D
Michale....
[153] Chris this will be my last response on this issue as I don't debate birthers or schoolers or anyone believing conspiracy nonsense they read on the internet. I debate serious issues only.
Read my points in 151, 152. Obama is not the first, nor the last, candidate to not reveal his SAT results. Some have before, yes, but the precedent in most recent elections is not to do this (probably based on the media backlash from those who did). No candidates have revealed any of the personal stuff you listed - like I said if you can show me ONE I will concede the point.
I mean the guy was President of the Harvard Law Review. But I guess in your conspiracy world HLR probably thought 'this year instead of selecting one of the brightest students at Harvard to be our President, as usual, we will select some dumb-ass because one day he might be actual President'. Although in your Limbaugh world this makes sense because DC Comics invented Bane in 1993 to use against Romney in the 2012 election lol. Or maybe he wasn't President of the HLR and this is invented as another liberal conspiracy right? Maybe you can be a 'reviewer' too ;)
[154] Like I said above I'm done on this issue. Much of the respect I had for the comments you made is gone, we'd be best leaving it and debating some actual non-conspiracy-related stuff. If you really cannot see why picking Obama's detailed records and personal information, when ignoring these of EVERY SINGLE
PRESIDENT BEFORE (including the previous and current Republican candidates), is not motivated by something other than transparency then I will never win this argument with you, as you have gone past the realm of rationality on this issue...
Let's go back, I'd love to hear your comments on [140] as I feel your last comment on the Bain issue really took your line of reasoning off the tracks...
RE [157]
"Would you assign blame to the executives that actually had a hand in the outsourcing of jobs who are now working for Obama and giving Obama millions of dollars in contributions???
They actually did the dirty deed.. Why do they get a pass and the guy who didn't even do anything doesn't???"
This is too easy. You really have gone off the tracks on this argument since you decided to bring in the donators.
The executives who outsourced the jobs are 100% to blame for those decisions in 2001, as is Romney from 1999-2002. 100% they are to blame. Lol I don't know what else to say on this.
I mean it's like your argument is:
1999-2002: Romney is the owner, CEO and President of Bain. He signs off on all their SEC filings, was the sole BOD member overseeing management and at any point in time he could’ve fired management if he was not happy with them. But no, he’s not responsible for the job losses that occurred during this period, since he wasn’t actively managing Bain – he was just the owner and founder of the company! Owners and founders have no responsibility for what the company does under their ownership lol.
2012: A guy, who was in a management role at Bain in 2001, gives money to Obama. Obama is therefore responsible for these job losses in 2001 – how dare he criticize Romney for job losses – what a hypocrite!
The Left has passed off Obama as some high IQ brainiac who plays 12-Dimensional Chess in his spare time...
So, wouldn't his SCHOOL RECORDS be relevant???
Especially since his self-branded intelligence was ALL he was bringing to the table? This guy had zippo governing experience and zippo business experience Oh, but not to worry, because he was just as smart as all get-out. His enormous intelligence was all that mattered. So let's see those SEALED scholastic records; some real live, actual, factual documents. Let's see ANYTHING other than O's personal say-so. The only thing this country has to go by is O's own self-authored history — and I don't even believe HE wrote those books, since he couldn't even manage to properly punctuate the "excuse" note he wrote to the kid's teacher a couple of months ago. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/president-obama-writes-fifth-graders-excuse-note/ Yet this is same the guy who presumably authored an extremely well-written book, which just happens to be in the same writing style as Bill Ayers, as all crazy coincidences would have it.
Michale: Former Navy SEAL Launches PAC To Fight Obama
How long before Team-O and the Left start wailing that O is being unfairly SEAL-boated?
mitchy,
[153] Chris this will be my last response on this issue as I don't debate birthers or schoolers or anyone believing conspiracy nonsense they read on the internet. I debate serious issues only.
You prove my point for me.
Having a POTUS with a forged Selective Service card *IS* a serious issue...
Having a POTUS with a phony SSN *IS* a serious issue..
I can PROVE to you that it IS a serious issue..
If it were a GOP POTUS, you would be leading the charge to storm the gates..
Am I right???
You know I am...
But you can't bring yourself to see that the Emperor is buck assed nekkid because you are blinded by partisan ideology..
If you were to look at the *facts* with the objective eye of a political atheist, you would simply HAVE to wonder what the hell is going on...
I mean the guy was President of the Harvard Law Review.
Which could have been simply the result of Affirmative Action.. You don't KNOW it was because of his grades, because he refuses to release his records...
The executives who outsourced the jobs are 100% to blame for those decisions in 2001, as is Romney from 1999-2002. 100% they are to blame. Lol I don't know what else to say on this.
OK.. So we agree that those executives are 100% to blame for outsourcing jobs...
Yet you see absolutely NOTHING wrong with having those executives working for Obama and Obama taking millions from one of those executives..
So, because they are Democrats, it's perfectly OK...
But it's NOT OK for the Republican, even though we agree that the Republican had no direct or even INDIRECT hand in the outsourcing jobs..
You see how ideology can color everything???
I am free from political ideology. I see the good and the bad in BOTH political Partys.
You see only the good in the Democratic Party and only the bad in the Republican Party...
Hence, your judgement is skewed to a particular ideological mindset...
Michale.....
It is undeniable that Obama AND the Left has made Obama's intelligence the center-piece of his campaign, his appeal and his presidency..
Given that fact, wouldn't his school records be relevant to determine whether or not Obama IS as intelligent as he and the Left claims he is???
You want Romney to fess up records to show that Romney IS the economic genius he claims to be...
What's wrong with asking Obama to fess up the records that show Obama IS the mental giant he claims to be and the Left claims him to be???
I am at a loss to understand the recalcitrance over this...
Do ya'all think Obama LIED about being a mental giant??
Michale....
What probably happened was that every single teacher he has ever had, both at school and University, has been paid off to keep his stupidity quiet - and give interviews saying how smart he was.
Harvard was then paid to pretend he went there, but instead of faking an academic transcript (which would be really easy if Harvard is consenting) they decided to just keep his school records locked up (just in case). They then paid the Harvard Law Review to destroy all their old editions and replace them with editions showing Obama as President of the HLR during that period. Oh and paid off the real HLR President to keep this quiet.
Following this, the University of Chicago Law School was paid to pretend that he lectured there for 12 years. They also paid tonnes of students to say that they attended his lectures. He was fake promoted to Senior Lecturer.
The Law Firm he 'went to' was then paid to pretend he went there, they faked some court transcripts to show him present in court on his faked law license.
They also paid a bunch of international charities to say he was on their board.
Then during his US Senate, followed by his Presidential campaigns, they brought in a smarter body double of Obama. It was this smarter body double who debated McCain in 2008 as Obama can't really speak good English (because he was born in Kenya). They bring in the body double for big speeches and international diplomacy too.
Finally, they brought in a ghost writer to write his book based on a made up story of his life that they gave the ghost writer.
During this time the real Obama sat in a hut in Kenya waiting for the call to come over and assume his role of President.
Then when he became President and had control of both the House and Senate instead of unleashing his socialist-communist agenda he decided to pass bills that were centre-right leaning and gamble he would get a 2nd term to unleash his communist attack.
We appear to have uncovered a conspiracy running deep in America from the schools, universities, legal and judicial system right through to the political systems. SPREAD THE WORD!
RE [163]
I mean I am really at a loss to explain your failed logic. I don't really know how else to put it.
Romney ran a company and OVERSAW the destruction and outsourcing of jobs. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than a guy who oversaw the outsourcing of jobs then, many years later, gave money to Obama.
Romney -> OVERSAW the destruction of jobs. DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE.
Obama -> Nothing to do with the destruction of jobs. NOT EVEN INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. Took money 11 years later from a guy involved.
I mean I really don't know how else to present this. You seem to think that taking money years after is in some-way equatable to actually being involved at the time jobs are destroyed lol.
It's like:
Romney punched a guy in the face!
Obama took money from someone who punched a guy in the face!
You seem to think that these two things are the same when they are not even equatable in ANY WAY!
Once again, trying to ridicule the legitimate questions that Obama's claims raises...
You can bet if Obama was a Republican, everyone here would be asking all those questions...
The only difference is, I would be right there with ya'all, asking the same exact questions...
But hay.. It's really simple to prove us wrong...
Just release the school records.... That's all there is to it..
Because, if Obama doesn't, using the Left's own reasoning, he must have something to hide...
Michale.....
But you can't bring yourself to see that the Emperor is buck assed nekkid because you are blinded by partisan ideology..
This is the same stuff we all went through with Clinton. Anyone who dared to question his character on the campaign trail, or even suggest that the like of a Gennifer Flowers or a Monica Lewisky could possibly be telling the truth, was instantly lambasted, mocked and labeled a kook, or a "hater," or a right-wing conspiracist. Fast forward, and Clinton's the first elected president ever to be impeached, having everything to do with lying to the American people about — gee, of all things — sexual misconduct.
And now it's the same crap all over again: Anyone who dares to question O's say-so, or request any type of actual documentation to back any of it up, is instantly pounced upon. This is the Left's well-established M.O., which everyone is quite naturally supposed to continue to fall for.
Oh wow!!
This is just TOO rich...
In the House, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) is proposing legislation that would require presidential candidates to release 10 years worth of tax returns and disclose any overseas investments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/democrats-apply-legislative-pressure-on-mitt-romney-to-release-more-tax-returns/2012/07/18/gJQAR5HttW_blog.html
I think that legislation is very similar to the legislation that state governments had put forth requiring Presidential Candidates to show a legitimate (IE not forged) Birth Certificate...
Funny how ya'all ridiculed such legislation.. And I'll bet 50K quatloos that ya'all are firmly behind the current Dem legislation... Right???
{{{{ssssssiiiiiggggghhhhhhhhh}}}}
Michale.....
What probably happened was that every single teacher he has ever had, both at school and University, has been paid off to keep his stupidity quiet - and give interviews saying how smart he was.
OR his professors swooned over him, just like the press "corpse" did. But, hey, here's a thought: How about opening up those sealed records and removing the "probably" from the conversation? What's a terribly bright guy like O got to lose by releasing his scholastic records? Nothing. So let's see them.
Romney ran a company and OVERSAW the destruction and outsourcing of jobs. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than a guy who oversaw the outsourcing of jobs then, many years later, gave money to Obama.
At the time that the company was outsourcing jobs, Romney had NOTHING to do with the company.
You yourself stated as much...
No matter HOW you try to spin it, Romney had NOTHING to do with the outsourcing..
Put it another way... If you created a company called MITCHY6 INC and, 10 years later you sold the company, but it still carried your name and 2 years after THAT, the company outsourced 100K jobs, would it be YOUR responsibility???
YOU started the company.
YOUR name is still the company..
By YOUR reasoning, YOU are responsible for the outsourcing of jobs..
In reality, that's kind of ridiculous, iddn't it???
I mean I really don't know how else to present this. You seem to think that taking money years after is in some-way equatable to actually being involved at the time jobs are destroyed lol.
It's the same concept as the Citizens United/SuperPACs issue..
Obama (and everyone here) went on and on about how evil SuperPACs are, how WRONG the ruling was, how it was "a threat to our democracy" and on and on and on..
Flash forward a couple months later and there is Obama embracing SuperPACs and trying to raise money thru them...
Kinda hypocritical, iddn't it??
Now, apply that to Bain.. Obama goes on and on about how evil Bain is and how wrong Bain is.. On and on and on and on...
Yet, he doesn't have a BIT of a problem taking money from Bain people, nor employing Bain people in his Administration.
Do you HONESTLY not see the hypocrisy????
Michale.....
Chris this will be my last response on this issue as I don't debate birthers or schoolers or anyone believing conspiracy nonsense they read on the internet. I debate serious issues only.
IOW, you're all out of excuses as to why O shouldn't unseal his scholastic records. The Left truly needs to get itself a new routine.
Well I'm about done here. Was nice chatting to you and you seem like nice people but your grip on reality is not quite there. I will repeat one more time:
Asking to see detailed school records (etc) for Obama when this has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE and YOU AREN'T EVEN REQUESTING THE SAME DISCLOSURE FROM THE OTHER CANDIDATE is not being motivated by transparency!
I challenged you to show me ONE. Just ONE time a President has shown these detailed records. ONE OUT OF FORTY THREE. You can't.
It's funny you talk about partisan politics. Yet requesting detailed records from one candidate, not the other, that no candidate has ever shown before and OH just happens to be the first ever black candidate is PURE partisan politics and is NOT motivated by transparency but race.
Now you compare it to Monica Lewinsky lololol. You really do live in a Fox-created-dream-world. One where the biggest conspiracy ever in the history of America is being played right in front of us, with webs across the justice, education and political systems throughout the land.
This is the same stuff we all went through with Clinton. Anyone who dared to question his character on the campaign trail, or even suggest that the like of a Gennifer Flowers or a Monica Lewisky could possibly be telling the truth, was instantly lambasted, mocked and labeled a kook, or a "hater," or a right-wing conspiracist. Fast forward, and Clinton's the first elected president ever to be impeached, having everything to do with lying to the American people about — gee, of all things — sexual misconduct.
Yea, they tried the same thing with John Edwards...
Boy, did the Left have to eat a lot of crow over THAT debacle.. :D
Michale.....
RE [171]
I mean I am now absolutely 100% sure you have no clue how businesses work. Did you read the link I posted?
"Put it another way... If you created a company called MITCHY6 INC and, 10 years later you sold the company, but it still carried your name and 2 years after THAT, the company outsourced 100K jobs, would it be YOUR responsibility???"
I mean I even covered this in post [121]. If I own a company and am CEO I am 1000000000000000000% responsible for what it does DURING THE TIME I OWN IT. There is a HUGE/GIGANTIC/SUPER ENORMOUS difference between a company continuing to carry your name and you CONTINUING TO OWN THE COMPANY. The fact is: Romney was owner from 1999-2002. Not 'left the company'. Not 'continued to carry his name'. He was OWNER. 100% SHAREHOLDER. CEO. The big cahona. The ball stops at him. The main man. The big guy. Ok I'm running out of references now. This is an indisputable fact (are you disputing this??).
I really don't know how else to logically present this. So I will repeat:
Romney punched a guy in the face!
Obama took money from someone who punched a guy in the face!
Ok in the aims of hoping that you will see the light and flaw in your logic I will state: I actually do believe it is wrong from Obama to take money from large Corporations who destroy jobs.
So I am saying yes, Obama taking money from the guy who did the face punching is wrong! But it doesn't mean that it is ANYWHERE CLOSE not even IN THE SAME BALL PARK as Obama actually punching a guy in the face ala what Romney did in this analogy. Romney still punched the guy in the face. This (analogy) is what the debate is about!
You are saying that taking money from a guy who punched a guy in the face is the SAME as punching a guy in the face. Your logic is miles off!
Asking to see detailed school records (etc) for Obama when this has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE and YOU AREN'T EVEN REQUESTING THE SAME DISCLOSURE FROM THE OTHER CANDIDATE is not being motivated by transparency!
But it HAS been done before..
Don't you recall the Bush years?? The Left went apeshit over his school records..
So, why was it relevant then, and not relevant now??
Further, since the Left & Obama has made such hay over Obama's alleged intelligence, then school records are certain relevant to establish that.
Just as Romney's tax records are relevant to establish Romney's economic bona fides...
I challenged you to show me ONE. Just ONE time a President has shown these detailed records. ONE OUT OF FORTY THREE. You can't.
You lose..
Bush had his records displayed for all to see...
It's funny you talk about partisan politics. Yet requesting detailed records from one candidate, not the other,
Actually, it's just the opposite..
All I have said is that, if the Left thinks that Romney's economic records (tax records) are fair game for disclosure, then the Left *MUST* concede that Obama's intelligence records (school records) are ALSO fair game..
If you want one, you have to push for the other...
It's really that simple...
Now you compare it to Monica Lewinsky lololol. You really do live in a Fox-created-dream-world. One where the biggest conspiracy ever in the history of America is being played right in front of us, with webs across the justice, education and political systems throughout the land.
Are you saying Monica Lewinsky never happened??
Wait.. I know.. OH!! Oh!!! I know...
"President Clinton never had sex with that woman."
Did I get it?? :D
Come'on dood.. Democrats are not pure as the driven snow...
There are PLENTY of tire tracks whizzing on thru...
All I am saying is that, if you want A, B and C from the Right, then the Left must also give up A, B and C...
Anything less is hypocrisy...
Michale.....
Well I'm about done here. Was nice chatting to you and you seem like nice people but your grip on reality is not quite there.
IOW, you're all out of excuses as to why O's scholastic records should remain sealed. And so now it's time to exit, Stage Left. Same old, same old M.O., every time. What the Left doesn't seem to realize, however, is how very "telling" it is when they go into panic mode at the mere suggestion that O open his scholastic records. I suspect that's because you guys know, just as well as the Right, that O amounts to little more than an ace bullshoot artist, i.e., not exactly the same guy you swooned over, on the campaign trail. And that's why the Left works so very hard to come up with every excuse under the sun as to why those records should remain sealed. You folks just don't want any more surprises from this guy. And it shows.
RE [176] Ahhhhhhhh I'm repeating myself so many times. Ok I'll try bold/italics maybe you'll actually read my message.
"All I am saying is that, if you want A, B and C from the Right, then the Left must also give up A, B and C..."
Perfect if that makes you have I'll even put it in SIMPLE A,B,C so you can make sense of why the tax and school records are COMPLETELY different:
Tax Records:
(A) Every single President and Presidential candidate in the last 40 years has released tax returns. Every single one. NO EXCEPTIONS.
(B) In the 1960s Romney's own father set the 12 years of precedent. Almost every candidate has followed this.
(C) Obama has released 12 years of tax returns.
Ok now let's apply the same rules to SAT scores, academic transcripts, history of University funding, grades (etc) that you are so desperate to see.
School records:
(A) No President has ever before released full school records. NONE. NEVER BEFORE. SOME have released SAT Scores and limited school result information.
(B) There is absolutely no precedent ever set by any candidate for releasing school records. NONE. NEVER BEFORE.
(C) Romney has not released any school records. NONE. NEVER BEFORE (ok it doesn't really work here but you get my drift)
Hopefully with this simple ABC you can you see why these two issues ARE NOT EVEN COMPARABLE?
Now you could argue Obama could be the bigger man and release his records and start the precedent. But, after he became the FIRST PRESIDENT EVER to show a long-form birth certificate, this still didn't settle the conspiracy nut-bags. So I could see him being in no rush to let you come up with more conspiracy nonsense lol.
As for Monica Lewinsky I would LOVE to know how you think the logic applies to this lololol. A case where it was one persons word vs another compared to a case that would require a MASSIVE inter-Governmental conspiracy involving the TOP SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES in America, top politicians etc etc is somehow logically comparable?!?!
Michty [155]
I can see your point using your definition. But to me oversight, auditing, supervision in any way is management. If you are on leave of absence as CEO and you sign filings as CEO in my view you've resumed active management as CEO, even if only for the time it took to sign.
I'm more than willing to admit he didn't do enough managing to be called a Bain manager. I can even accept your position that he wasn't technically management. What I cannot accept is that he had no management role, that he didn't manage or that he wasn't a manager, in plain English, as in supervisory oversight, doing actual work for Bain, not semantics.
And while I agree the whole argument is silly I think Romney's disclaimers aren't even technically true. If your active on a board, you're involved in managing the company. If you're on leave you don't sign filings. Romney's claims of having no role at all in managing Bain don't hold water.
One where the biggest conspiracy ever in the history of America is being played right in front of us, with webs across the justice, education and political systems throughout the land.
"Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
'nuff said...
Michale.....
RE [178]
Fantastic argument. We believe that Obama is part of the largest conspiracy ever seen in the history of US politics. We offer no proof of this. YOU have to prove us wrong. If you don't then you are running away which means we must be right. Lolol.
I believe that Mitt Romney was born in Mexico. He is not an American citizen. The birth certificate he released is a clear forgery. If you don't respond with evidence or he doesn't respond to this claim then he is running away and must be lying (by your logic)
And while I agree the whole argument is silly I think Romney's disclaimers aren't even technically true. If your active on a board, you're involved in managing the company. If you're on leave you don't sign filings. Romney's claims of having no role at all in managing Bain don't hold water.
Then he should be prosecuted...
Obama's DOJ will investigate anything to serve a political agenda..
Why aren't they investigating Romney??
Answer: Because there is nothing there...
Michale.....
As for Monica Lewinsky I would LOVE to know how you think the logic applies to this lololol.
Because I'm seeing the Left's same old M.O. playing out, right down to the nervous lololol-ing. Tell me what O has to lose by releasing his scholastic records. Tell me why the Left doesn't want to see those records opened.
Or, better yet, spare any more excuses. I think we both know perfectly well why the Left wants/needs them to remained sealed.
[179] LD yeh I see your point. The way that fact-check differentiated was by claiming the definition of management was akin to 'running the day-to-day affairs of the business'. In this sense Romney wasn't 'managing' Bain.
But you are correct under most normal definitions he was.
My view is all this is moot, unless you believe that someone who is a founder, owner, CEO and President of a company isn't responsible for it's actions if he wasn't running it 'day-to-day' (apparently some in this comments thread do).
I believe that Mitt Romney was born in Mexico. He is not an American citizen. The birth certificate he released is a clear forgery.
Do you have any facts to back this up??
Because there is a statement from the woman who SIGNED Obama's REAL Birth Certificate that says the one currently on display is a forgery...
Now, if you have any facts like that against Romney, then let's air them...
There are so many facts that show Obama's BC is fake... But you ignore each and every one of them because they cast aspirations on The Exalted One...
Michale.....
@[182] They probably would investigate, except the statute of limitations has passed on this. If you don't know what that is Google it...
@[183] Obama won't release his records for the same reason Romney won't show his REAL birth certificate or HIS school records - because Romney was born and educated in Mexico.
@[185] It is not up to me to produce the facts, apparently, you have to prove my statement is false by getting Romney to release more documents. See my post in [186] above. According to you, failure to release documents=must be hiding something. Your logic, not mine.
Fantastic argument. We believe that Obama is part of the largest conspiracy ever seen in the history of US politics. We offer no proof of this. YOU have to prove us wrong.
That's a little tough, with all his records sealed. Gosh, kinda makes a body wonder why all his records are sealed. You'd think Team-O would have proudly plastered those scholastic records all over the internet, what with O being such an intelligent guy, and all. Yet here they are, locked up like a well-guarded state secret, and with the Left coming up with every imaginable excuse as to why they need to remain locked. Gee, not TOO telling.
@[188] Romney's records are also sealed. Probably because he was born and educated in Mexico.
Gosh, kinda makes a body wonder why all his records are sealed. You'd think Team-R would have proudly plastered those scholastic records all over the internet, what with R being such an intelligent guy, and all.
Yet here they are, locked up like a well-guarded state secret, and with the Right. coming up with every imaginable excuse as to why they need to remain locked. Gee, not TOO telling.
Obama won't release his records for the same reason Romney
Oh, is it time to neatly shift the focus away from Obama and HIS records, just like clockwork? Same old, same old M.O. The Left has every tired tactic at the ready. The only thing they don't have is a reason as to why O's scholastic records need to be kept from the public.
Gosh, you folks couldn't possibly be a little nervous about what those records might reveal, could ya? Naaaaaaah. Not much.
You guys haven't responded to [178] yet. Have you learned your ABCs?
@[190]
Oh, is it time to neatly shift the focus away from Romney and HIS records, just like clockwork? Same old, same old M.O. The Right has every tired tactic at the ready. The only thing they don't have is a reason as to why R's scholastic records need to be kept from the public.
Gosh, you folks couldn't possibly be a little nervous about what those records might reveal, could ya? Naaaaaaah. Not much.
How can Romney be CEO, for real, not "just on paper" and not be managing the company?
Uh, CEO's are allowed to take a leave of absence. Yeah, shockingly enough, they're actually not required by law to show up at the office every day and manage the operations. They're actually allowed to hand the reins over to managers while STILL retaining their title.
Gosh, you folks couldn't possibly be a little nervous about what those records might reveal, could ya? Naaaaaaah. Not much.
I don't really care what the records reveal...
I simply state (and you have yet to refute) that if the Left wants transparency from Romney, then they better be prepared to give transparency from Obama..
What could POSSIBLY be more fair than that???
But the Left ONLY wants transparency from Romney while Obama is allowed to keep his secrets...
That's unfair and you know it...
But that's how political ideologues think...
Michale.....
@[193]
"Uh, CEO's are allowed to take a leave of absence. Yeah, shockingly enough, they're actually not required by law to show up at the office every day and manage the operations. They're actually allowed to hand the reins over to managers while STILL retaining their title."
There are several issues with this:
- CEOs just can't take off on a 'leave of absence'. They have to create specific paperwork outlining who is taking over their responsibilities and file it with the SEC. If Romney had this, he would've produced it by now.
- If your CEO is on a leave of absence, you appoint a temporary CEO to oversea management of the company (usually the CFO or COO). Again this must be filed with the SEC and THIS name (not Romney's) would appear on SEC forms
- You CAN take a leave of absence and still be responsible for overall company strategy and operations just not the day-to-day business. This is pretty clearly what happened (similar to what Steve Jobs did when he was ill) - you are still responsible for all the SEC filings and oversight of management under these circumstances.
Romney's records are also sealed. Probably because he was born and educated in Mexico.
Yeah, that sure would explain why Team-O is out there, screaming that info from the highest mountain and demanding that Romney's eligibility be further explored. Oh, wait...
If Romney had this, he would've produced it by now.
Really? Romney's supposed to help Team-O shift the focus away from O's own record? On which planet is this political scenario supposed to take place?
@[194] What you said is wrong. Didn't you read my post in [178] where I outlined the ABCs?
Specifically you said: "I simply state (and you have yet to refute) that if the Left wants transparency from Romney, then they better be prepared to give transparency from Obama..
What could POSSIBLY be more fair than that???
But the Left ONLY wants transparency from Romney while Obama is allowed to keep his secrets..."
I agree that both sides should provide the same level of transparency! And yes that would be absolutely fair. No arguments so far until your last sentence...
Your last sentence (boldened by me) is absolute nonsense! Let's examine the transparency shown by both candidates so far:
Tax Records:
- Obama 12 years (in full)
- Romney 1 year (not full)
School Records
- Obama not released
- Romney not released
Birth Certificate
- Obama released (i) certificate of live birth and (ii) long form birth certificate
- Romney released only (i) certificate of live birth
I really don't understand how you can argue based on this that we are being UNFAIR by getting Romney to match the level of disclosure shown by Obama? And how OBAMA is the one hiding something lol. This is why your last sentence and views on this in general are nonsense...
@[196] "Yeah, that sure would explain why Team-O is out there, screaming that info from the highest mountain and demanding that Romney's eligibility be further explored. Oh, wait.."
Because Team-O is not full of racist, conspiracy nut-jobs. But don't worry I'm on board now and I'll be demanding all this information. Since by your logic the more people demanding information the more accurate their claims must be lololol.
@[197] Exactly. This is another reason why Team-O is not demanding this info from Romney but instead showing how awful his record is. If Obama's record is so awful and you've got so much material to condemn him with why are you harping on about school records and stuff lol?
Oh, is it time to neatly shift the focus away from Romney and HIS records, just like clockwork?
Oh, gee, will ya look at that: That focus has been neatly shifted away from Obama, just like clockwork. Same old, same old.
@[200]
Oh, gee, will ya look at that: That focus has been neatly shifted away from Romney, just like clockwork. Same old, same old
From my post at [198], if you guys still think looking at the facts that Obama is the candidate hiding information, not Romney, then I'd love to hear why (other than 'I don't like Obama and I like Republicans' - I'd like an actual logical reason):
Tax Records:
- Obama 12 years (in full)
- Romney 1 year (not full)
School Records
- Obama not released
- Romney not released
Birth Certificate
- Obama released (i) certificate of live birth and (ii) long form birth certificate
- Romney released only (i) certificate of live birth
In everything, except school records where both have released nothing, Romney is less transparent than Obama. But no, continue your believe that it is the left who is lying and hiding things and you are looking for 'transparency' not basing your request on racial grounds...
WASHINGTON — Rep. Nancy Pelosi was emphatic. Mitt Romney’s refusal to release more than two years of his personal tax returns, she said, makes him unfit to win confirmation as a member of the president’s Cabinet, let alone to hold the high office himself.
Sen. Harry Reid went farther: Romney’s refusal to make public more of his tax records makes him unfit to be a dogcatcher.
They do not, however, think that standard of transparency should apply to them. The two Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives are among hundreds of senators and representatives from both parties who refused to release their tax records. Just 17 out of the 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities in response to requests from McClatchy over the last three months. Another 19 replied that they wouldn’t release the information, and the remainder never responded to the query.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/18/156632/most-members-of-congress-keep.html#storylink=cpy
What did I tell ya???
The Left only demands disclosure from the Right...
The hypocrisy is positively NAUSEATING...
Michale.....
Oh, gee, will ya look at that: That focus has been neatly shifted away from Romney, just like clockwork. Same old, same old
That's because all you are about is Romney this and Romney that...
*I* want to know why you won't hold Obama to the same standard you hold Romney??
Why do you give Obama a pass on everything from Fast/Furious to forged Selective Service card, but yet you demand a pound of flesh from Romney???
Why the double standard, slick??
(Sorry, couldn't resist. I am watching MIB III and it kinda slipped into the post..:D)
Michale.....
Why???
michty6 [173]
Well I'm about done here. Was nice chatting to you and you seem like nice people but your grip on reality is not quite there...
Excellent summation!
Not quite, indeed ...
@[203] Very nice find.
You have a really weird definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be democrats in the Senate demanding Republicans in the Senate release their tax returns when not having released their own! I don't think you're as independent as you think you are, every-time I present you with fair facts you jump to some extreme right-Fox-orientated conclusion lol.
Presidential candidates are (and should be) held to a much higher standard than other positions in office). This is how it has ALWAYS been done historically - Romney's FATHER was a pioneer in this. Now there is hypocrisy: not releasing 12 years of tax when your own father started this precedent.
Aside from this, if you are arguing that members of Congress should make their tax returns public (both parties) then I fully agree. I think that is important information. 17/535 is pretty shocking.
@[204] Lol the funny thing is I am not even a Democrat. I hold Obama to very high standards. Just that I am not a conspiracy theory lunatic and I look at the facts. You are completely dodging posts
[198] and [202] that I put up demonstrating that Romney is not anywhere near meeting Obama in terms of transparency, despite your crazy-conspiracy-right-wing views of the world.
"Why do you give Obama a pass on everything from Fast/Furious to forged Selective Service card, but yet you demand a pound of flesh from Romney???
Why the double standard, slick??"
What on earth are you talking about?? You are trying to put words in my mouth. At no point have I made any statements on anything to do with this stuff and certainly not 'given him a pass' lol.
@[205] Lol yup. Slow work day. Plus I find it fun, I have never actually debated people with extreme conspiracy views before. It's fun to show them why what they are saying is nonsense - at least these guys are actually willing to listen to reason. Maybe I'm being too naive though in thinking that...
Hypocrisy would be democrats in the Senate demanding Republicans in the Senate release their tax returns when not having released their own!
Apparently, you have a weird definition of hypocrisy...
Hypocrisy is Democrats Pelosi and Reid demanding that Romney (a Republican) release his tax records when THEY refuse to release theirs..
That's hypocrisy...
But I understand how you could miss that. They ARE Democrats after all and are not to be held to standards of us mere mortals....
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it. :D
It's fun to show them why what they are saying is nonsense
And... when will THAT happen, exactly??? :D
Let's face it. You have a plethora of facts before you and you don't have an answer for ANY of them...
All you do is spew Political ideology about Democrats being as pure as the driven snow and Republicans are Satan incarnate...
Try actually looking at things thru the eyes of a person NOT enslaved by Party dogma..
You'll LOVE the view.. I guarantee it...
Michale.....
I do have one thing to say, mitchy..
Please, oh PLEASE stick around til November!! I am gonna need you... :D
Michale.....
@[208] Lol like I said you have a weird definition of hypocrisy:
"Hypocrisy is Democrats Pelosi and Reid demanding that Romney (a Republican) release his tax records when THEY refuse to release theirs.."
Let me go no record now that I demand Romney releases his tax returns. However, I myself will not release any tax returns, as I am not running for President. Under your definition of hypocrite I am also a hypocrite, as is anyone else who believes a Presidential candidate should release their tax returns but won't release their own lol.
"Let's face it. You have a plethora of facts before you and you don't have an answer for ANY of them...
All you do is spew Political ideology about Democrats being as pure as the driven snow and Republicans are Satan incarnate..."
Lol I mean you might get away saying this to anyone else but not to me. I'm not even a Democrat lol. I am a logical and sensible person though.
So on that front, please present the facts that you feel I have not answered?
I will also present to you that you have failed to re-butt the facts I presented in [178],[198/202] nor the analogy I presented in [175] which is around the subject this thread exists for. Every-time you have just changed the subject. Either respond or concede the point.
"Try actually looking at things thru the eyes of a person NOT enslaved by Party dogma.." I would suggest you do the same. Look at the FACTS. Don't try and twist the facts to suit your agenda. Don't believe everything you read. Get facts to support your evidence - not make a claim and then if no facts support that claim assume it must be right lol.
I'm out for the evening so you have plenty of time to present these facts that I am not answering...
Let me go no record now that I demand Romney releases his tax returns. However, I myself will not release any tax returns, as I am not running for President. Under your definition of hypocrite I am also a hypocrite, as is anyone else who believes a Presidential candidate should release their tax returns but won't release their own lol.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you are not in Congress.. I don't think anyone CARES about your tax returns..
But those in Congress make a LOT of money by being in Congress. Not their salaries.. The salary is a pittance to what they make by insider knowledge and actually manipulating things to ENSURE that they make more money..
So, while your tax returns and my tax returns are irrelevant, the tax returns of Congress are not.
You yourself said that you want to take the influence of money out of politics..
How can we do that if Congress doesn't show us how much money they make??
So, I say that ANYONE who goes into politics should release their tax returns in their entirety..
For those in Congress to demand that tax returns be released by a person NOT in government when they that are IN government WON'T release theirs???
Well, that seems to me to be the textbook definition of hypocrisy...
I will also present to you that you have failed to re-butt the facts I presented in [178],[198/202] nor the analogy I presented in [175] which is around the subject this thread exists for. Every-time you have just changed the subject. Either respond or concede the point.
Look, I ain't gonna scroll up 10, 20 30 100 posts to try and figure out what you are referring to..
You want to make a point on one of my comments, quote it...
Get facts to support your evidence - not make a claim and then if no facts support that claim assume it must be right lol.
I have the facts.. The problem is, you simply write it off as "nonsense"...
For example.. In 1961, the handwritten numeral '9' in a box of a Hawaiian Birth Certificate signified that NO DATA was entered into said box...
Yet, in Obama's birth certificate, the numeral "9" was entered into 4 different boxes, EACH of which had data in that box...
Can you explain that??
Further, the term for Obama's father's race was "African"... The term African as a notation for RACE did not enter into government documents until 1989..
Can you explain that??
Finally, the Attorney General of Hawaii would NOT confirm that the White House document matched what was on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.
You said you wanted FACTS...
These are FACTS...
Can you explain them?? Yes or No??
Michale.....
I do have one thing to say, mitchy..
Please, oh PLEASE stick around til November!! I am gonna need you... :D
WOW!!!
This just hit me...
The next time we have the CW.COM fund drive, we'll have President-Elect Romney!!!
Woot!!!!! :D
Michale.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57475178-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-in-presidential-race/
What was I just saying about if the election were held today??? :D
Michale
Wow, all those millions spent by Team-O, and this is what they've bought for themselves:
"Fifty-four percent of registered voters cite the economy and jobs as "extremely" important in their presidential vote, more than any other issue. Here Romney has the edge: 49 percent of registered voters say he would do a better job handling the economy and jobs, while 41 percent cite Mr. Obama.
Romney is also seen as better on the federal budget deficit (50 percent to 36 percent), taxes (47 percent to 42 percent)...
As I believe I mentioned earlier, Team-O seriously needs to abandon this dead horse and find something else to spin. These Bain attacks clearly are not paying off.
As I believe I mentioned earlier, Team-O seriously needs to abandon this dead horse and find something else to spin. These Bain attacks clearly are not paying off.
Agreed...
Team Obama is trying to paint Romney as a ruthless businessman...
Funny thing is, Joe and Jane Public are thinking, "THAT'S the kind of man we need in charge!!!"
:D
Ya just GOTS to love the irony....
Michale.....
Rasmussen is showing essentially the same thing among Likely Voters: "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns 46%...."
And O's even sliding in New Mexico: "Could President Barack Obama be vulnerable all of a sudden in New Mexico, a state he took by a landslide in 2008 and seemed likely to hold without much strain in November?
Polls going back to February in New Mexico have shown Mr. Obama up consistently by double digits over his presumptive GOP rival, Mitt Romney. But a new Public Policy Poll of the state finds the president ahead by just five percentage points, 49% to 44%...". http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/18/presidential-race-appears-to-tighten-in-new-mexico/
And then there's this, from today's NY Times:
"Despite months of negative advertising from Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies seeking to define Mr. Romney as out of touch with the middle class and representative of wealthy interests, the poll shows little evidence of any substantial nationwide shift in attitudes about Mr. Romney.
But with job growth tailing off since spring and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, wondering aloud whether the labor market is “stuck in the mud,” the poll showed a significant shift in opinion about Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, with 39 percent now saying they approved and 55 percent saying they disapproved ....
...Including voters who lean toward a particular candidate, Mr. Romney has 47 percent to Mr. Obama’s 46 percent.
Both results are within the poll’s margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. But it is the first time Mr. Romney has shown a numeric edge in the Times/CBS poll since he emerged from the primaries as the presumptive nominee. Mr. Obama had a three-point advantage in March. The two were each favored by 46 percent in April...."
Memo to Team-O: You're wasting an awful lot of media bucks on an attack campaign that ain't working. Perhaps a strategy meeting is in order.
Michale: Funny thing is, Joe and Jane Public are thinking, "THAT'S the kind of man we need in charge!!!"
ROFL! I was thinking the exact same thing. Yet I'll bet Team-O is completely stymied. Can you just see the thought bubble above Axelrod's head? Wait, America! Romeny is a successful business man. That's bad, America! Bad!"
From yesterday's HuffPo:
New Hampshire Poll: Barack Obama's Lead Shrinks.
"President Barack Obama holds a narrower lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, according to a new poll.
The WMUR Granite State poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, finds Obama ahead of Romney by 49 to 45 percent. The president’s lead, which is within the survey’s margin of error, marks a decline since April, when the university pollsters found him ahead of Romney by nine percentage points...."
And, yesterday, the PPP reported the same kind of slippage going on in Iowa:
"President Barack Obama holds a 5 point lead over Mitt Romney in PPP’s latest survey of the state, 48% to 43%. This represents a drop off in support for Obama since he led the Republican challenger by 10 points when the state was last surveyed in May...."
Not the kind of ROI a campaign wants after having invested millions upon millions of bucks on a concentrated effort to drag the opponent's numbers down. This strategy is clearly showing signs of not working. Maybe Team-O should seek some investment advice from Romney. LOL
Haha I checked back. This will be a long post. I don't know if I will post much more around here, I don't debate with birthers and schoolers - I usually debate policy and issues.
@[212]
I didn't realise you were a hard-core birther. But ok I believe I can persuade you to see logic and reason (I am probably being naive).
I agree with you that members of Congress should require to show taxes (see my previous post). But this has never been policy. Releasing taxes as a Presidential candidate has ALWAYS been policy. So their request is legit.
I'd be happy to debunk your lolbirther nonsense:
"For example.. In 1961, the handwritten numeral '9' in a box of a Hawaiian Birth Certificate signified that NO DATA was entered into said box...
Yet, in Obama's birth certificate, the numeral "9" was entered into 4 different boxes, EACH of which had data in that box...
Can you explain that??"
Complete made up birther nonsense. Have you even looked at his birth certificate? Can you recognise the number 9? Can you count? Maybe you should actually look at his certificate? The only time the number 9 appears is (once) in his year of birth (1961)
Further, the term for Obama's father's race was "African"... The term African as a notation for RACE did not enter into government documents until 1989..
Can you explain that??"
I'll let fact-check deal with this one. You know that site you were PREACHING about earlier? The one that has dozens of different fact-checks stating Obama was born in the USA? I get the feeling that you will be changing your tune and not supporting it anymore lololol:
'why is Obama’s father’s race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.'
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/. Here is another one: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/its-official-obama-born-in-the-usa/
"Finally, the Attorney General of Hawaii would NOT confirm that the White House document matched what was on file with the Hawaii Department of Health.
And this proves what? I think they have been pretty forthcoming in providing information about Obama's birth certificate to you and your fellow conspiracy-nut-job-friends. It is the same issue as before, you believe when someone doesn't supply information they are GUILTY AUTOMATICALLY lol. When I point out that Romney hasn't supplied the exact same information you talk about you go quiet all of a sudden or accuse me of changing the subject lol.
I could ask a tonne of questions but I will go with one: there are many billionaires out there who are birthers (eg. Trump). If they wanted to they could hire 100000 private investigators to investigate research, go to Africa etc etc etc. Why haven't they? The answer is because they don't really believe it. They just want to use it to make Obama look less legit. If they could prove it, they would've. But they can't BECAUSE IT'S NONSENSE.
@[214-219] Lololol at one survey. I could give you a dozen surveys showing Obama with a lead. But this too means nothing. The best way is to take an average of the surveys. Like real clear politics does. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
These are the AVERAGE polling numbers just now. Tbh I am just showing them, I know they are meaningless and don't reflect what will happen in November.
However, they reflect polls at a BAD time for Obama - after 2 months of flat unemployment. Romney SHOULD be crushing him as 'Mr Economy' just now but he isn't. This is very BAD news for Romney as he's still behind. It is a sign the Bain attacks are working. Here are the AVERAGE battleground polls from RCP earlier today (see my post 87):
Colorado – Obama 2.9
Florida – Obama 0.4
Iowa – Obama 1.3
Michigan – Obama 1.8
Missouri – Romney 3.0
Nevada – Obama 5.3
New Hampshire – Obama 5.3
North Carolina – Romney 1.2
Ohio – Obama 3.8
Oregon – Obama 8.0
Pennsylvania – Obama 7.8
Virginia – Obama 2.0
Wisconsin – Obama 4.4
My Turn
Like I said you won't address my facts, I will list them here:
- Romney was owner, CEO and President of Bain from 1999-2002 - agree?
- As owner he is responsible for oversight of management, meeting with management annually and signing off on SEC filings approving their accounts - thus the actions of Bain. Agree?
- Obama has been considerably more transparent than Romney in his pre-election releases (I have posted on this several times). Agree?
- The requests for Obama to release detailed school records, SAT scores, university funding reports, academic transcripts are nonsense. They have never been asked of any President before, hinting that this is conspiracy, racist chatter. NO PRESIDENT has EVER provided this much detail. So you asking it of Obama and going mental when he doesn't provide it is you believing he should provide WAAAAY more information than ever released before. Agree?
There is more but I'll start there...
mitchy,
I know I am going to regret this.. I have several laptops I have to fix in the next hour..
But I can't resist the challenge...
I didn't realise you were a hard-core birther.
I'm not.
I am a hardcore FACT'er... :D
Complete made up birther nonsense. Have you even looked at his birth certificate? Can you recognise the number 9? Can you count? Maybe you should actually look at his certificate? The only time the number 9 appears is (once) in his year of birth (1961)
You are making this WAY too easy...
http://sjfm.us/temp/bc.jpg
You will note that the the red squares show a penciled in numeral 9. According to the lady who actually signed Obama's BC, this indicates that there is no DATA in the field.
Yet, as you can clearly see, DATA is in that field..
As an aside, I did make a mistake on the number of "9" notations. I thought it was 4. Apparently, it's only 2.
We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African."
On the face of that, that sounds reasonable..
Yet, there is NO other birth certificate of that era, of that timeframe that has "AFRICAN" as the race. AFRICAN wasn't even a RACE at the time. That came later with all the Left's PC crap..
Further, it's unlikely that the nurse filling out the information that would eventually go into the BC would have even bother asking the father what race he was, as it would be obvious to anyone of that time that he was black..
So, logic clearly dictates that BLACK should have been in that box, not AFRICAN.
In and of itself, it's not conclusive. But taken with all the other inconsistencies PLUS the eyewitness testimony, it does raise the level of suspicion..
And this proves what?
It PROVES nothing..
It's a STRONG indication that the Hawaii AG doesn't want to commit perjury..
If the BC shown by Obama IS the same as the one on file in Hawaii, why not say so?? Surely the incentive to clear up this mess MUST be overwhelming..
Why refuse to authenticate the BC data??
Employing Occam's Razor, only one explanation is logical.
There are discrepancies between the BC that Obama showed and the BC that Hawaii has on file.
If they wanted to they could hire 100000 private investigators to investigate research, go to Africa etc etc etc. Why haven't they?
How do you know they haven't??
Further, there is already testimony on the record from several of Obama's African family who have stated that Obama was born in Kenya.. So, it seems a trip to Africa would be moot..
Further, such a trip would likely prove fruitless. Have you ever been to a small village in Africa?? If someone were to show up and ask for records from 1961, they would likely be laughed at.. If the natives could even understand them at all.. They likely wouldn't even know what "records" are...
I'll let fact-check deal with this one. You know that site you were PREACHING about earlier?
WOW! Who could have predicted that a Leftie would go to FactCheck when it said something that said Leftie wants to believe!?
What a tic... I DID!! :D
- Romney was owner, CEO and President of Bain from 1999-2002 - agree?
In name only... As we have agreed, he had absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for what Bain did in those years..
- As owner he is responsible for oversight of management, meeting with management annually and signing off on SEC filings approving their accounts - thus the actions of Bain. Agree?
No, he did not. He had totally and completely divorced himself from Bain. That's what FactCheck says.. And we have agreed that FactCheck's word is gospel. Or are you saying that FactCeck's word is only gospel when it supports your position? :D
- Obama has been considerably more transparent than Romney in his pre-election releases (I have posted on this several times). Agree?
Only on things that Obama WANTS to release.. He has been less transparent on the things the American voters want to see...
They have never been asked of any President before,
President Bush's school records were hacked and leaked by Democrats during the 2004 election..
Apparently the Left felt strong enough about school records to actually commit a crime in obtaining them..
Why aren't school records important with Obama??
Further, you keep dodging this.. If Obama's "claim to fame" is his intelligence (as Romney's "claim to fame" is his economic prowess) is it logical to have Obama PROVE his intelligence?? You want Romney to PROVE his bona fides, right??
Why do you not demand the same of Obama??
Why won't Obama release his records??
Now, to be honest, I don't think you'll find any smoking gun there. My theory is that his school records will show that Obama was a below average student which would re-enforce the belief that he is a poster child for Affirmative Action..
But the fact of the matter is the Left thought "school records" were important enough to commit a crime for.
So, if "school records" are THAT important against a Republican incumbent, then they SHOULD be THAT important with a Democrat incumbent.
Anything less is hypocrisy...
Gotta run. I'll be in my shop all day, but I'll pop in and out. :D
Michale.....
Would you also like to discuss Obama's Selective Service card?? There is a LOT more compelling evidence that indicates that THAT also is a forgery.. :D
Remember. I'm a FACT'er... :D
Michale.....
They have never been asked of any President before,
Were you on another planet during the 2004 election??
I can provide you TONS of links that show Lefties all over the place, demanding that Bush release his school records..
When he refused, Democrats committed crimes to get them and released them..
So, you can't poo-pooh that away. School records ARE important to voters. Especially from a guy who'se intelligence was practically his ONLY selling point..
Michale....
Test
@[221] PART 1
No you are not a FACT'r you a BIRTHER or more accurately a conspiracy-theorist. You conveniently ignore the facts when they don't suit your nonsensical arguments. You believe in absolute twaddle that proves nothing. You believe not providing information makes you not guilty.
You quote fact check sites when they agree with you but ignore them when they disagree with you (over 10 times on the same issue lol).
Notice: I agree with fact-check from your original post (see my many posts above) and I agree with fact-check now. Because I am not, uhm what’s it called again, that word that you continually use incorrectly oh yes I remember A HYPOCRITE.
I’m sorry for the rant, you seem like a nice person but one whose mind is easily influenced by nonsense propaganda. You are closer to the exact OPPOSITE of a FACT’r – a propaganda’r.
PART 2
"You will note that the the red squares show a penciled in numeral 9. According to the lady who actually signed Obama's BC, this indicates that there is no DATA in the field."
Nope, that is not what the code meant in 1961. Try googling and doing some research. I can’t post the link because it won’t let me. But no data is what this code meant in 1968, in 1961 it meant ‘Other Non-White’ since ‘African’ was not an option on the list.
I mean the idea that someone had incorrectly entered the wrong code and this was conclusive proof that the whole thing was a fake is quite frankly laughable. It is something a 12 year old would come up with (my apologies if you are 12, that would explain your logic capabilities).
PART 3
Yet, there is NO other birth certificate of that era, of that timeframe that has "AFRICAN" as the race. AFRICAN wasn't even a RACE at the time. That came later with all the Left's PC crap..”
Yes this is why they put a 9 next to it lol. Because it wasn’t on the list of recognized race codes. The Hawaiian DOH has confirmed (MANY TIMES) that parents were allowed to state their race. Kenyans like Obama’s dad thought of themselves as African, an example from a book at the period http://www.scribd.com/doc/54152116/AFRICA-A-Z or this from the Kenyan census in 1962 (google and see for yourself)...
I mean you really think Obama’s going to invest millions and mountains of man power to come up with this forgery then put ‘African’ as his father’s race deliberately??? Haaaaaaaaahahahaha. 12 year old logic at play again.
It's a STRONG indication that the Hawaii AG doesn't want to commit perjury..
If the BC shown by Obama IS the same as the one on file in Hawaii, why not say so?? Surely the incentive to clear up this mess MUST be overwhelming..
Ah more 12 year old level logic. If they don’t release something they are guilty. So since Romney hasn’t released his birth certificate and the Attorney General of Michigan hasn’t confirmed it IT MUST BE FAKE TOO! Lolol.
You do realize that obtaining long form birth certificates requires making a specific request to the DOH? And you need further permission to allow it to be photocopied? But no, that's not enough let's make more exceptions because we're not happy with the FACTS! We need EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN HAWAII to confirm it's real LOLOL.
WOW! Who could have predicted that a Leftie would go to FactCheck when it said something that said Leftie wants to believe!?
Nope logic fail AGAIN. I agree with fact-check on this issue AND the issue you raised earlier. Because I am not a hypocrite, conspiracy-nut-fact-hater like you are.
To be honest I don’t know why I am even debating this with you since you can’t understand basic logic. But I am convinced in my mind you might be rational enough to see sense. Like I said I’m probably being naïve. I’ll give you 2 more posts on birther nonsense, after that we’re done.
PART 4 (THE REAL DEBATE)
Now on to the real debate:
In name only... As we have agreed, he had absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for what Bain did in those years..
You have a different understanding of how business works than I do. If owners, Presidents and CEOs are no longer responsible for the decisions their companies make in today’s day and age I guess I should just burn my business degree…
No, he did not. He had totally and completely divorced himself from Bain. That's what FactCheck says.. And we have agreed that FactCheck's word is gospel. Or are you saying that FactCeck's word is only gospel when it supports your position? :D
Nope, I agree with fact-check as I have stated many times. I absolutely agree he was not involved in the day-to-day running of Bain and on a leave of absence from this. However, being CEO, President and Owner carries many other FIDCUIARY DUTIES, including oversight of management. Based on these fiduciary duties he is fully responsible, like any other CEO who signs their name on their SEC filings, for overseeing management. He didn’t make the decisions – I agree with fact-check on this – but he is RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING THE PEOPLE WHO DID. This is a legal, indisputable fact – it is how CORPORATE GOVERNANCE works in business!
Only on things that Obama WANTS to release.. He has been less transparent on the things the American voters want to see...
Lol I mean this describes Romney perfectly. I have no idea how you think this applies to Obama more than Romney. It’s not like Obama’s father ran for President and released 12 years of school records and Obama is now failing to follow. I have demonstrated quite clearly several times that Obama is more transparent than Romney. Do you agree with this statement or not? It doesn’t matter what you schoolers/birthers believe, the question is: has Obama released more information than Romney?
Further, you keep dodging this.. If Obama's "claim to fame" is his intelligence (as Romney's "claim to fame" is his economic prowess) is it logical to have Obama PROVE his intelligence?? You want Romney to PROVE his bona fides, right??
Why do you not demand the same of Obama??
Why won't Obama release his records??
Lol I mean there you go trying to put words into my mouth. NO I DO NOT WANT ROMNEY TO PROVE HIS. I know what his record is. I know, like Obama, he went to Harvard. Generally when a guy goes to ONE OF THE TOP UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD (2nd in the world in 2011-12), I am willing to take his educational level as good! I am not a nut-job-conspiracy-theorist who believes that unless full information is released he is guilty lol.
I am also not a hypocrite. If I demanded Romney released his school records, I would demand the same of Obama. But you conspiracy nuts are only demanding this of Obama. And you don’t see WHY THIS MEANS YOU ARE COMPLETELY BIASED on the issue??
President Bush's school records were hacked and leaked by Democrats during the 2004 election..
I mean I don’t know what to say to this one. Now you’re just making stuff up. A leftie hacked Bush. Lololol. I mean if you’re going to lie at least have a source.
All you had to do was check Bush’s official site where he officially published the transcript: http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp
Damn they must’ve hacked his own site and he left it up there lololol. But no keep believing your conspiracy nonsense about how the left is hacking and cheating left, right and centre.
You make some good points.. I am going to have to really research it to devestate them.. :D
Unfortunately, I am at work now, so time doesn't permit. I'll get to your posts tonight around 1800hrs EDT. :D
Michale...
For some reason I had to split it up. Then I worked out it was because of some links in there. The '9' issue is detailed at obama conspiracy dot org - on the main page.
Chris1962 [193]
If a CEO appoints someone to manage in his absence then the "interim CEO" is the one who signs filings as "CEO."
If you are on a leave of absence you do not sign any corporate filings. If you do sing any corporate filings you are doing work for the corporation and therefore no longer on leave of absence.
Shocking, but true!
Bain didn't have an interim CEO. The operations and decision-making was left to management directors. To this day, Bain does not have a CEO.
You can state your personal understanding of the law as unequvical fact all you want. But the bottom line is, if Team-O had an SEC case to bring against Romney, they'd be all over it like a cheap suit. Thing is, they don't have a case, and all your spin regurgitating isn't gonna change that brutally obvious fact. Not that that's gonna stop the Left's infamous circular firing squad. How's that $100M smear campaign working out for Team-O and the PACs? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tied-virginia-romney-44-obama-44_648745.html You folks really don't know when to stop beating a dead horse.
Michale [221]
Shockingly, Africans have always considered their race to be "African."
Americans, especially those of us descended from slaves, tend to assume we're of African descent (since most slaves were from Africa and our antecedents during slavery are often unknown and untraceable) and tend to self-identify as African-American or Black. We do not self-identify as "African." And Africans certainly don't consider us to be African.
Michty,
Just want to clarify that the reason the management issue (being CEO not just the owner) is important to me is that I'm more concerned about Romney's blatant lying about his role with Bain than I am about his involvement with Bain outsourcing. I've never had any respect for corporate raiders, outsourcing is small-potatoes to me.
Its Romney's lack of trustworthiness due to his dishonesty that I think is the important issue with regard to his fitness for the Presidency.
Shockingly, Africans have always considered their race to be "African."
Cite???
Michale
Christy1962 [232],
If a company has no CEO then no one files as CEO swearing under oath that they are CEO.
Again, you seem to have issues understanding that whole ethics, truthfulness, perjury thing.
You also don't seem to understand the statute of limitations. Romney can't be prosecuted a dozen years after the fact. Its the law. And for your information prosecution is not proof of guilt. Prosecution and conviction are proof of the governments right to punish guilt.
Likewise a lack of prosecution or lack of conviction does not mean innocence it means the government has no authority to punish. Its innocence under the law.Which is why you can be found innocent criminally and still be convicted civilly.
I don't imagine you'll appreciate the difference but if you choose to remain ignorant it will at least be your choice.
Michale [235],
Your are kidding right?!
Your are kidding right?!
No, I am not...
If you don't have a cite, if you are just relaying what you have heard from people who were alive in 1961 and could attest to that claim, then I will have to conditionally accept your answer..
Conditional on the fact that what you are saying is accurate...
In other words, I would like to have PROOF of your claim, but in absence of proof, I am willing to, conditionally, take your word for it.. :D
In shorter words, if you are right, then you are right.
If you are wrong, then I am right.. :D
Michale....
(sigh)
You're kidding, right?!
But just in case you are not. I am the source. You may quote me. As an American descendant of American slaves who, since the 1960's has, on occasion, personally self-identified as both Black and African-American, as have other African-Americans of my acquaintance, I personally attest that I have personally been told by Africans of my acquaintance over the years that Africans do not consider Black Americans to be Africans. Shockingly, said Africans did consider themselves to be Africans.
I further attest that neither myself nor any American descendant of slaves of my acquaintance has ever considered themselves to be African. However, African immigrants and descendents of African immigrants who are not U.S. citizens do consider themselves to be Africans. While African immigrants and descendents of African immigrants who are U.S. citizens consider themselves to be African-Americans.
Satisfied? There you have it, a primary source with actual first-hand knowledge, not just a cite.
If a company has no CEO then no one files as CEO swearing under oath that they are CEO.
Again, you seem to have issues understanding that whole ethics, truthfulness, perjury thing.
I think you have a problem understanding what "on paper" means. And, again, I'll remind you that if there were any perjury case to be had, Team-O would be bringing it instead of wasting $100M on innuendo, only to see O's numbers go DOWN as their return on investment. So continue spinning yourself all you want, but here's the bottom line: This. Dog. Don't. Hunt. So either bring the perjury charge or lay the horse to rest and move onto something that has traction. Those are Team-O's and the Left's PACs two choices following the abject failure of their $100M battleground blitzkrieg effort to "define Romney."
We don't have enough folks on food stamps as it is, so quite naturally...http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/
@ [232, 240]
"To this day, Bain does not have a CEO."
I can see why you are so confused by this argument. You don't even understand basic private company structures and requirements! All listed companies are required to have a BOD with either a CEO, COO or COOCOOCLOCK - whatever you want to call the people on your BOD.
I just looked up their company filings. They were signed by 'Michael D. Ward' who is listed as 'Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer' as at March 31 2012. If Bain were outsourcing now, this would be the guy ultimately responsible; if Bain screw up, this will be the guy who resigns.
"I'll remind you that if there were any perjury case to be had, Team-O would be bringing it..."
I have already told you the Statute of Limitations has long passed on Romney's signings. There is literally no way anyone could make a case against him in court.
@[234]
Ultimate responsibility of how a company runs rests with their Board of Directors. The Bain BOD was compiled of: Mitt Romney (CEO). That's it. He was their BOD. He signed off all their filings. No-one else was on the BOD or brought on to the BOD during his leave of absence. From the very start I have maintained this is a pretty straight-forward case and calling Romney not responsible for the actions of Bain during this period is just silly. It's like saying the BOD isn't responsible for anything a company does. Laughable in the business world.
Just Google 'CEO resigns' and read the thousands of articles where a CEO takes responsibility for the performance of his company and leaves.
Romney wants to run on his economic record excluding the parts that he doesn't want to run on lol.
@[235,237,238]
First of all LOL. Secondly I actually providing a link in [227] that shows in 1961 Africans considered themselves African (I feel stupid just writing that lol).
@[241]I have an interesting food stamp fact for you guys since I KNOW you love facts so much:
In terms of percentage increase, Obama has put LESS people on food stamps than BOTH Bush Jr and Bush Snr. In between these guys, Clinton actually reduced the number of people on food-stamps by the biggest % reduction ever in US history. Funny Republicans don't mention their party has the worst record on food stamps often ;)?
LD,
Satisfied? There you have it, a primary source with actual first-hand knowledge, not just a cite.
But hardly an unbiased or objective source..
I would prefer documentation from the era that showed black Africans referring to their race as "African"...
Charlize Theron is an "African"... Theresa Heinz-Kerry is an "African"...
Kinda kills your theory.. :D
But as I said, I'll accept it conditionally, since you don't have anything else...
Michale....
I can see why you are so confused by this argument.
Err, no. As I stated, to this day Bain does not have a CEO. But, by all means, continue to try to twist the word "responsible" to mean whatever you need it to. But at the end of the day, the fact remains that there's no commission of perjury, just spin from the desperate Team-O machine. Make that $100M worth of spin, which has gotten them nowhere fast, but which you're still desperately trying to peddle.
As for your trip in the WayBack Machine to the days of Bush, allow me to clue you into a little bit of reality: Not only is Bush not running for the presidency but voters are concerned with the here and now, and the future. They don't live in the liberals' WayBack Machine. So your Bush statistics are meaningless. O's the incumbent president, and he's teamed with MEXICO to drive up food stamp participation. Tell me you think that sounds like something that's gonna play well with voters. Y'know, the voters of 2012, versus yesteryear.
@[245] I feel like I'm whacking my head on the desk here. Well I guess I am dealing with birthers/schoolers (or ex-birthers if you've read my posts and agree with them?).
"But at the end of the day, the fact remains that there's no commission of perjury
Quote:
[62] LD "its a felony and probably (I'm no lawyer) beyond the statute of limitations"
[186] ME "They probably would investigate, except the statute of limitations has passed on this."
[236] LD "You also don't seem to understand the statute of limitations. Romney can't be prosecuted a dozen years after the fact. Its the law"
[242] ME "I have already told you the Statute of Limitations has long passed on Romney's signings. There is literally no way anyone could make a case against him in court."
I mean I guess we were expecting too much by assuming you know what the Statute of Limitations is or how it applies in this case. I forgot you're a birther/schooler, so you're probably too busy investigating whether the moon landing was real or not...
Michale [244]
Fortunately, its not my responsibility to correct the gaps in your education and its certainly not my responsibility to provide cites until you are convinced. — Then there's the not insignificant issue of your inability to reason logically. — Every primary source with first-hand information is "biased" they all (hopefully) believe what they think they know.
If you lack the ability to determine truth by applying and/or expanding your own knowledge through independent research, extrapolation, or inference that's your problem, not mine. — Although it would explain why you find right-wing propaganda so credible.
I feel like I'm whacking my head on the desk here.
I feel like you keep repeating yourself, despite having no point to make.
If you lack the ability to determine truth by applying and/or expanding your own knowledge through independent research, extrapolation, or inference that's your problem, not mine. —
Truth???
Who's talking about "truth"???
"If it's TRUTH you're looking for, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
-Indiana Jones, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
I deal in FACTS...
As I said, your testimony is subjective and biased, so it's hardly the kind of FACTS that I would hang my hat on...
But if that's all you have, then it is what it is..
It's like when I use my personal experiences in working CT ops as background for my conclusions. It's not really PROOF that anyone can examine and confirm.. But it's one of those things that, if it IS valid (which it is), then so are my conclusions..
I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt that I am sure you would give me...
In other words, I don't think you would make up something, just to win an argument...
Michale.....
LD - you're talking to BIRTHERS here. I think just by that fact you know their ability to determine truth is incredibly flawed...
@[248] "I feel like you keep repeating yourself, despite having no point to make."
Ok I'll summarise it in simple form for you (although I doubt this will help):
(1) Romney was the founder, owner, CEO (only BOD member) and President of Bain - fact.
(2) Romney signed SEC filings stating the above was true from 1999-2002 - fact.
(3) Romney is now claiming this is not true - fact.
(4) Every single business that is a privately listed has a BOD which is responsible for the management of that business - fact.
(5) 1 + 2 + 4 = Romney is responsible for the management of Bain from 1999-2002.
(6) 1 + 2 + 3 = Statute of Limitations means he can deny this and not face any charges
Have I made my point simple enough for you?
Michale [249]
Maybe its just me, but when someone tells me their opinions I may well be skeptical until I have corroboration to my own satisfaction. But when someone tells me their own experiences, much less their own actions, I tend to accept that they are truthful unless I've a reason to believe they're lying.—But, like I said, maybe that's just me.
I will say, however, categorically, that placing more faith in cites off the internet than peoples first-hand experiences is not very smart. Just because you see it on television, or the internet, does not make it true. Most people find primary sources more reliable because they can be interrogated to help establish their veracity.—But perhaps you use some other method—like Ouija boards or whether its on Fox News.
(3) Romney is now claiming this is not true
Wait, what? Romney is claiming he wasn't the CEO/owner/founder? Are you stating a fact? Or are you confusing your own personal interpretations/characterizations with fact?
@[252] "But when someone tells me their own experiences, much less their own actions, I tend to accept that they are truthful unless I've a reason to believe they're lying" Unless they're a politician ;)
@[268] Lol I thought I made it simple enough. I will try again:
(1) Romney was the founder, owner, CEO (only BOD member) and President of Bain - fact.
(2) Romney signed SEC filings stating the above was true from 1999-2002 - fact.
(3) Romney is now claiming that number (1) is not true for the period 1999-2002, despite number (2) confirming it - fact.
(4) Every single business that is a privately listed has a BOD which is responsible for the management of that business - fact.
(5) 1 + 2 + 4 = Romney is responsible for the management of Bain from 1999-2002.
(6) 1 + 2 + 3 = Statute of Limitations means he can deny this and not face any charges
Michty [250],
Michale and I are old acquaintances. He's more fanatically obsessed (he'd probably say passionately committed) than a Birther. He's come to hate Obama and will champion anything that disparages him. Outside of his obsession (and before it) he displays admirable intelligence.—Even better, he can take criticism as well as dish it out.
Technical Announcement
OK, folks, don't know what happened, but the spam filter was getting a bit overexcited. Mostly on posts by Chris1962 and michty6, but also on others.
I now have 26 messages that were caught be the spam filter, that I could now make live. Only problem - if I do that, they get interthreaded above where they were originally posted, and that blows away the numbering system (everyone's comment numbers would adjust, to put it another way). Since this is a very long thread, and lots of folks are referencing these numbers, this might lead to confusion galore.
So, if there is any particular comment you'd like me to rescue, let me know and maybe I'll paste it in as a new comment to preserve the numbering.
michty6 (and to other new posters) -
I've been busy, I usually welcome new people to the site. One of the things I say in my normal welcome message is that posting multiple links per comment always gets you stuck in the moderation or spam queues. The best way around this is to only post one link per comment.
OK, sorry for the snafu everyone. Let's see if things technically improve in the next few hours...
-CW
Michty6 [254],
Too true.
Michty6 [254],
Then again, their being a politician is reason to suspect they're lying!
@[271]
Yes I noticed, I would say he looks at facts and logic in a different way. He finds obscure hypothesises (like on Fox/other right wing crazy sites) then finds facts to support them and, even when you show him BOTH the hypothesis AND the facts are wrong, vehemently defends them to the death. But this pretty much all birthers in a nut-shell!
To begin with when I posted on here I thought Michale was pretty neutral (and he sold himself this way) but this is clearly not the case. It's funny because I am absolutely a neutral in this.
I absolutely agree on one thing though - Michale you handle criticism very well. I sometimes feel as I have been coming across too harsh (it's hard not to when you advocate such crazy beliefs) but you've taken it well I'll grant you that.
@[272]
ChrisW - I am new to the site and I was trying to post a large post. I didn't realise (until I read the info on your site) that the comments board doesn't like links. Also it wasn't saying 'your comment is awaiting moderation' the comment just disappeared! Eventually I discovered the issue was one link that your board just does not like! There are none of my comments need saving though, so feel free to just delete them all thanks.
Lol I thought I made it simple enough.
You can make it really simple by answering my question instead of dancing around it. I'm not interested in wasting my time arguing about something that amounts to nothing more than your personal interpretation/characterization, stated in the form of unequivocal fact. So here's my very simple question once again: Did Romney claim that wasn't the CEO/owner/founder during that time period? The answer is no. He never made that claim.
To begin with when I posted on here I thought Michale was pretty neutral (and he sold himself this way) but this is clearly not the case. It's funny because I am absolutely a neutral in this.
Please don't say stuff like that when I am downing a beer.. Now I got stuff all over my monitor!! :D
You are clearly not neutral when it comes to Obama..
You ignore any FACTS that puts Obama into a bad light...
Now, I grant you that there are other possibilities to explain the discrepancies in Obama's BC....
But, when one employs Occam's Razor, it all becomes clear..
Are we to believe that Obama is the unluckiest guy in the entire universe that he would have SO MANY discrepancies, typos, mistakes and mis understandings when it comes to his paper trail??
Or... Is it MORE likely that something is amiss...
When you take into account the totality of Obama's paper trail... School records... BC... Selective Service card... ALL of that and ALL of the baggage that goes along with that...
Well, what's more logical??
That it's ALL random coincidences, innocent typos etc etc etc???
Or that there is something amiss that Obama doesn't want the American people to learn..
The prevailing theory amongst the Left is that Romney is hiding something because he won't release a decade worth of tax records...
Why doesn't that theory apply to Obama??? Since Obama won't release school records, why isn't it logical to think that OBAMA is hiding something??
You think you're are neutral?? Until you can apply the SAME standard to BOTH candidates, you are not neutral..
I, on the other hand, *AM* completely neutral.. I expect the same amount of transparency from Obama that I expect from Romney...
THAT's being neutral...
As far as the criticism goes, oh yea.. It's not a problem. I sometimes get passionate, but I try not to take myself (or anyone else) too seriously.. Sometimes it's a chore to keep that in mind, but then usually David or Kevin or Liz or CB or CW will say something hilarious and I forget about being offended. :D
It's been said many times before and it's the gods' honest truth..
Anyone here could sit down with any other one, enjoy a beer, shoot the shit and have a helluva time.. And then, the next day, be right back in here, jumping into the fray...
ChrisW - I am new to the site and I was trying to post a large post. I didn't realise (until I read the info on your site) that the comments board doesn't like links. Also it wasn't saying 'your comment is awaiting moderation' the comment just disappeared! Eventually I discovered the issue was one link that your board just does not like! There are none of my comments need saving though, so feel free to just delete them all thanks.
I had that happen once or twice today myself. No MODERATION notice, just NO COMMENT...
Michale.....
@[276]
"Did Romney claim that wasn't the CEO/owner/founder during that time period? The answer is no. He never made that claim."
You're kidding right? I mean do you even read any of the posts? Do you know why this entire article and all these comments exist? Did you read the article??
Here are some quotes from the Romney campaign themselves:
"Romney retroactively retired from Bain in 1999" - this is the funniest on. I wish I could do whatever I wanted and then later say 'oh I was retroactively retired then'.
"Your article on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain asserts that Mitt Romney remained “at the helm” of Bain Capital beyond his retirement from the firm in February of 1999. This is inaccurate"
Apparently being Founder, Owner, CEO, Only BOD member and President means you aren't 'at the helm' lol.
This is from the DISCLOSURE FORM WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING! You know the one where we have had to remind you about the statute of limitations several times? I have added bold for reference:
"Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way"
So apparently being Founder, Owner, CEO, Only BOD member, President and signing this in SEC filings is equatable to not being involved in 'any way' lol.
@[277]
Michale - if you want to bet something on it I could prove quite easily I am more neutral than you. Care to make a wager?
OMG. AMAZING. I love how you completely mis-apply Occam's Razor. You do know what this is right? HAHAHAHAH OMG I am literally laughing out loud.
Let me correctly apply Occam's Razor for you:
Obama has an American birth certificate. Therefore he was born in America.
Hahaha I can't believe you call looking at all the OBSCURE information 'Occam's Razor' that is amazing. Lolololol.
Occam's Razor = The simplest explanation is probably correct.
Your interpretation = The most complex and absurd explanation is probably correct.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one.
But if you REALLY want to correctly apply Occam's Razor I will agree. Because then your argument is over.
"The prevailing theory amongst the Left is that Romney is hiding something because he won't release a decade worth of tax records.."
To quote myself from the other thread "I don't say
'Romney is not releasing his tax returns, therefore he must be hiding something!' (like you and Mr Michale like to)
I say 'Romney is failing to follow the precedent set by his own father, followed by Obama and is therefore being less transparent on this. The fact he is refusing to do something that the other candidate has done, as started by his father, badly damages his character.'
This is based on facts, not speculation."
You again "I, on the other hand, *AM* completely neutral.. I expect the same amount of transparency from Obama that I expect from Romney...".
Nope. Just SO SO SO SO WRONG. Do I really have to quote [198] and [202] AGAIN to show you how Obama is more transparent? I mean I am really beating my head against the wall now.
mitchy,
It's simply impossible to follow your responses if you don't quote what your responding to...
Laugh it up all you want.. The FACTS will win out...
And, when we have President Elect Romney on 7 Nov 2012, the one who laughs last laughs best.. :D
Michale.....
You're kidding right? I mean do you even read any of the posts?
Well, Chris's post is an op-ed, not a newspaper report. And I've read plenty of We, the Posters, posts, which are laden with personal interpretations and characterizations, stated in the form of fact. That doesn't make them facts. But you don't seem to discern between the two, so I'm basically talking to myself here. I keep getting responses like this:
Apparently being Founder, Owner, CEO, Only BOD member and President means you aren't 'at the helm' lol.
Does that answer my question as to whether Romney ever said that he wasn't CEO/founder/owner during that time period? No, it doesn't. Just more of your personal paraphrasing and characterizing and non-answers, signed off with an "lol," like that's supposed to lend some kind of legitimacy to your non-answer.
So would you like to answer the question? If so, answer the question.
@[281]
BANG BANG BANG BANG. My head against the wall. I mean do you even read my posts?
Yellow. Monkey. Banana. HELLO. ARE YOU READING? DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS MEAN:
Romney: "I left Bain in 1999".
Romney: "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999"
Romney "I retroactively retired from Bain in 1999". Romney "I was not involved in Bain in anyway from 1999"
Romney "I was not at the helm of Bain from 1999"
Romney "In February of 1999 I left Bain Capital and left all management authority and responsibility for the firm"
Romney "After 1999 I had no responsibility or activity with the management of Bain Capital"
Romney "I left the firm in 1999"
Do you know what 'retired' means?
Have you ever heard of a retired CEO that is still CEO??
Do you think someone who says they are retired from a job but is later found to be in the job is not lying??
Do you know what 'not involved' or 'any way' means? Do you think that being CEO is being 'not involved in any way'?
Do you know what 'not at the helm' means'?
Do you know that the CEO position is considered to be 'at the helm'?
Do you know what 'management authority and responsibility means'?
Do you know what 'ALL' means?
Do you think a CEO has NO RESPONSIBILITY?
Do you think a CEO HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIVITY OF A COMPANY?
Do you think the LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT THEY DO SO DOESN'T EXIST?
Do you know what 'left' means?
Do you think that when someone says they 'left' the company but THEY ARE STILL CEO PRESIDENT AND ON THE BOD that they are lying?
Speaking of left this comments board a while ago. It's like debating a 5 year old.
Chris1962,
The quotes in bold in Michty6[263]are quotes of Romney, through his spokesperson, denying that he was CEO/founder/owner during that time period.
Romney: "I left Bain in 1999".
Yeah, on a leave of absense. And, no, I'm not gonna go through your cherry-picked, out-of-context single sentences, where you try to insinuate something nefarious by isolating the statement — or printing HALF a sentence, for all I know.
Do you know what 'retired' means?
Uh-huh. I even know what retiring retroactively means — or even what re-hiring retroactively means. For the most part, it has to do with contracts and monies owed, depending upon when you formally retire (or become re-hired) ON PAPER. And there's nothing illegal or nefarious or suspicious about it. Romney never denied that he retained his CEO title, or ownership, etc., while he was on a leave of absence. So his SEC submissions are perfectly legal. He said (from your own quote), "In February of 1999 I left Bain Capital and left all management authority and responsibility for the firm." And that is true. So, again, you're left with nothing but SPIN — single isolated sentences, presented with the intention of making it appear as though some kind of foul play was afoot, or a lie had been told, or a law had been broken, or a breach of ethics had occured. Except that all any of it amounts to is spin, which is put out for liberals to regurgitate, whether they even understand it or not.
And no amount of ALSO injecting personal opinions, stated as fact (e.g., Oh, well, a CEO still IS "responsible" for other people's decisions...), turns those personal opinions/characterizations into facts.
And that's all that's being done here: regurgitating spin, with no evidence of any crime, or even so much as an actual allegation of a crime; just plain old innuendo.
It cost Team-O $100M to try this tactic, and it has failed. Yet liberals are still twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to make it seem as though a CEO on a leave of absence is somehow still legally bound to be "responsible" — whatever vague thing THAT'S supposed to mean — for duties and decisions made by the managings directors. And duties/decisions that don't even amount to a crime, or anything even remotely unethical, no less.
Chris1962 [269],
Not "personal opinion", business law.—But you wouldn't know anything about that—or anything else about business.
Chris1962,
You keep repeating ON PAPER as if that is supposed to mean something. When you sign an SEC filing you have to swear that what's on paper is in fact accurate and true. If it's not its perjury and a felony. There is no such thing as retroactively unsigning it. And there is no way to make it "retroactively" untrue but your swearing it was true not a lie and perjury.
Everyone with a functioning brain understands this. Which, of course, leaves you out. So we've been trying to explain it in words of one syllable that even you might understand. Clearly, however, that simply is not possible.
"Everyone with a functioning brain understands this. Which, of course, leaves you out. So we've been trying to explain it in words of one syllable that even you might understand. Clearly, however, that simply is not possible."
My thoughts exactly. He has his view and facts will not change it. I give up.
From [284] this is my favorite part of your complete misunderstanding and cluelessness (bold added for emphasis):
"trying to make it seem as though a CEO on a leave of absence is somehow still legally bound to be "responsible" — whatever vague thing THAT'S supposed to mean — for duties and decisions made by the managings directors."
Lolol. I can just see the headlines tomorrow:
"Bank loses $4 billion. CEO says 'It's not my fault, I'm just the CEO on paper - that's all! I'm not legally bound!'"
"Company spills masses of oil in the North Sea. CEO says 'Nothing to do with me, uhm I retroactively retired 3 years ago'"
"Firm caught fixing LIBOR rate. CEO testifies before congress 'But CEO's are not 'responsible' for management - whatever that's supposed to mean!'"
Oh I got another one:
"Bank loses $4 billion. CEO says 'I was on holiday during the 2 weeks it happened so just because I'm the CEO on paper doesn't mean you can blame me!'"
LD please chip in :)
"Large computing company announces it's first ever losses since becoming public. CEO says 'But we have hundreds of thousands of employees and managers. I'm just the CEO on paper. Not my fault!'"
"Large investment bank suffers 24% revenue fall. CEO says 'Actually I'd just popped out to the bank when this happened and wasn't even there. Just because I'm the CEO on paper that doesn't make me responsible!'"
"Shocking news in the business world today where a man was discovered to be CEO of 1,517 different companies. When asked to comment the man said 'Well being CEO is just a paper thing. And since each one is paying me $100k I figured I would just try and be CEO for as many as possible since I heard that that position doesn't require doing anything or come with any responsibilities...'"
"In shocking news today, the CEO of Enron is appealing the 24 year prison sentence he received for being CEO during the time where it was committing crimes.
He said in a statement:
'I am fighting this sentence as just because I was CEO on paper does not mean I am legally 'responsible' - whatever vague thing that's supposed to mean - for the decisions made by management.
In addition to this I was retroactively retired during this period. Just because I signed all those legal documents taking responsibility for the company doesn't mean I am ACTUALLY legally responsible for the company - come on that's just liberal nonsense!'"
I don't know what you think you achieve with all your little snippets, none of which have anything to do with Romney's circumstances. And, again, you can use the word "responsibility" in any number of vague ways, and try to torture it into meaning whatever want/need it to. But it still boils down to your personal opinion/perception/characterization; not fact. That's the part you don't seem to understand, michty.
You keep repeating ON PAPER as if that is supposed to mean something. When you sign an SEC filing you have to swear that what's on paper is in fact accurate and true.
Yeah, and Romney truly, accurately retained his titled of CEO while he was on a leave of absence.
If it's not its perjury and a felony.
"If." So where's the perjury? This is the second time I've asked you. Do you realize that there isn't even an actual ALLEGATION that's been made? Have you watched Team-O very carefully qualifying their statements, e.g., Romney MAY HAVE committed a felony; he COULD HAVE committed a felony; a felony MIGHT HAVE been committed; etc. Why do you think they've been doing that, Lew? It's because words have meaning. Here's what a real, actual allegation looks like: "Romney committed a felony"; "Romney committed a crime"; "Romney violated the law." So where's so much as an actual allegation from a Team-O member, Lew? For someone who fancies himself a "business law" expert, you might take some time to study the actual words that are being stated and take note that no one from Team-O has dared to lay an actual allegation on the table. Guess why.
Ya'all can argue what the definition of "is" is all night long..
But it DOESN'T change the facts..
Obama's BAIN attacks are going nowhere.. Repeat **NOWHERE**
The only Americans who CARE about Romney/Bain are the Hysterical Left...
It's rather ironic though.. When Pelosi was questioned as to why she won't release HER tax returns, she quickly changed the subject and said, "...talking about the economy is more important."
Ironically enough, Pelosi hit the nail on the head..
To every American EXCEPT the Hysterical Left, the economy is more important than Romney's role in BAIN..
So, by all means. Follow Team Obama over the Bain Cliff...
Makes me no never mind..
In the end, it will only help Romney..
Michale.....
Since we're paying homage to Karl Rove in this commentary....
Rove: Obama Gets Down and Dirty
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577535052152769424.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
:D
My advice to the Hysterical Left is the same as it's always been..
If you want to preach from a foundation of morals and ethics....???
Clean your own frak'in house first!
Michale.....
@[295]
"Have you watched Team-O very carefully qualifying their statements, e.g., Romney MAY HAVE committed a felony; he COULD HAVE committed a felony; a felony MIGHT HAVE been committed; etc. Why do you think they've been doing that, Lew?"
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG - Head on wall.
I mean seriously.
How many times do we have to repeat THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MEANS THAT HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A FELONY, SO THEY CANNOT ACCUSE HIM OF COMMITTING A FELONY. THIS IS HOW THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WORKS.
@[294]
" And, again, you can use the word "responsibility" in any number of vague ways, and try to torture it into meaning whatever want/need it to. But it still boils down to your personal opinion/perception/characterization""
NO IT DOES NOT. WHEN YOU SIGN SEC FILINGS YOU ARE SIGNING LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT CARRY LEGAL AND FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES. This is not personal opinion, there are LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OUTLINED IN THE LAW.
Why do you think the CEO of Enron is in jail? Because the Judge had a personal opinion that the CEO carries legal responsibility for the actions of the company???? NO BECAUSE HE HAS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS COMPANY
Some basics on this maybe you can try reading:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer#Responsibilities
(3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Duties
This is what arguing with you guys is like:
You:Well what about A and B, they prove C is right.
Everyone else:Actually A, and B are wrong thus C is wrong.
You:Well what about D and E proving F is right!
Everyone else:Well you're on the right lines but D and E are just speculation, not fact so that doesn't prove anything about F.
You:Well what about A and B proving C is right!
Everyone else:Huh? Haven't we just discussed this 100 times?
You:You're just repeating yourself, silly hysterical left
Everyone else:What on earth are you talking about? *Repeats criticism of A and B*
You:Yes but what about D and E and F!
Everyone else:*BANGS HEAD AGAINST WALL* But we just discussed this are you crazy?
You:Well if you can't argue your point you lose! Also what about G and H!!
Everyone else:*Gives Up*
An example:
You:Well Occam's Razor (A) says this is true (B)
Me:Well actually you pretty much applied Occam's Razor in the exact opposite way it was intended to be applied (A). Occam's Razor if applied properly completely kills your argument and the correct answer is... (C)
You: Well that doesn't take away from the fact that the Bain attacks are going nowhere (D)
It's like debating a 5 year old.
It's like debating a 5 year old.
Yes, it is. But I'm hoping you catch up soon... :D
Let's face it.. All you have given is your opinion...
It's your OPINION that Occam's Razor was used in the opposite manner in which it was intended.. You provide NO supporting facts that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion...
This is all fun and all, but let's face the facts...
It's COMPLETELY irrelevant...
The ONLY point that matters is the fact that the American people DON'T CARE about Bain.... Obama spent ONE MILLION DOLLARS to try and show the American people that Romney is Satan-incarnate and HE FAILED...
The American people have spoken...
Time to move on...
Michale.....
How many times do we have to repeat THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MEANS THAT HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A FELONY
Yeah, that sure would explain why Team-O is out there saying the Romney may have committed a felony, michty. Maybe you should stop banging your head against that wall, since it's affecting your ability to think clearly. Oh, and you might try learning how and why "spin" is worded, and how to distinguish it from actual fact. That way, you won't have to keep getting instantaneously suckered into it, and caught up in your own underwear trying to play the role of an expert legal eagle.
NO IT DOES NOT. WHEN YOU SIGN SEC FILINGS YOU ARE SIGNING LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT CARRY LEGAL AND FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES.
Psssstttt... When Romney signed the papers, he was really and truly the CEO/founder/owner. No crime was committed.
This is not personal opinion, there are LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OUTLINED IN THE LAW.
Ah, there's that amorphous use of "responsiblity" again. Look, it's painfully obvious that you're trying to declare that a CEO on a leave of absence, who has turned decision-making and management "responsibilities" over to others, is nevertheless "responsible" for their decisions. Only their decisions didn't involve anything illegal, immoral, unethical, sneaky, underhanded, or anything else. So there was never any "there" there, to begin with, michty. You've been desperately trying to give legs to Team-O's spin effort — and not even a good spin effort, as spin goes, since it was instantly and completely blown out of water by newspapers/factchekers. And the reeason you continue to fail miserably is because an illegality never occurred. A CEO gave his managing directors the freedom to grow the company in ways that they saw fit, in this global economy and marketplace, and they did. Period. And all without Romney's input or presence. That's all there is to this ridiculous story, and all there ever will be — particularly now that this entire spin effort has failed to resonate with the American people. So give the Perry Mason routine a rest.
Michale: Let's face it.. All you have given is your opinion...
It's your OPINION that Occam's Razor was used in the opposite manner in which it was intended..
It's always the same problem when conversing with the Left (or at least the vast majority of them): They convince themselves that their personal opinions are one and the same with fact. And anyone who disagrees with the way they personally view it is factually incorrect. LOL. They don't seem to have a clue that they're merely stating an opinion. And then it escalates to the point of "banging their head against the wall" and communicating in all-caps, mystified that the other person "can't understand" what's being said. It's like watching a bad sit-com.
@[304]
"It's your OPINION that Occam's Razor was used in the opposite manner in which it was intended.. You provide NO supporting facts that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion..."
I mean I assumed when you brought up Occam's Razor that you knew what it means.
The definition from wikipedia:
"It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions." (Bold added for emphasis)
Ok which hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions:
1. Obama released two American birth certificates. Therefore Obama is an American.
2. Obama released two American birth certificates. But (and I quote you) it has "MANY discrepancies, typos, mistakes and misunderstandings when it comes to his paper trail." Furthermore when you consider "the totality of Obama's paper trail... School records... BC... Selective Service card... ALL of that and ALL of the baggage that goes along with that..." he is not an American.
I mean either you don't know the meaning of the phrase 'fewest assumptions' (possible) or you don't know how to count (clue: if you don't want to count you can consider that one of these statements has 1 assumption, one has more than 1) or once more you are completely blinded by your own crazy views that you can't even apply a simple concept like Occam's Razor correctly (I'd go with the latter as my guess, possibly all these reasons though).
It is a complete no-brainer but you will not be able to see this since you can not see reasonableness, logic, fact or ANYTHING if it goes against your conspiracy-views of the world...
And this has NOTHING TO DO WITH BAIN. Everytime you are losing an argument you just flip it to another argument, then when you're losing that argument you flip it back again lol - like I pointed out in [302-303].
@[306] It is banging your head against the wall. There is no opinion about Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor clearly states the argument WITH THE FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is the correct one under this principle.
Either you guys can't count (could be true) or can't read (also could be true) or can't understand simple concepts (definitely true) or are completely blinded by your own ignorance, bias and conspiracy world that you can't see how nonsensical your interpretation is (absolutely, definitely true).
You are employing Occam's Razor against a faulty conclusion..
I never claimed Obama wasn't an American..
Maybe you should pay closer attention to the discussion...
All I have said is that there are inconsistencies with so much of Obama's paper trail that it is, based on the principle of Occam's Razor, completely impossible that it's ALL innocent mistakes, typos, mis-recollections, mis-prints and all the other garbage that the Left uses to cover for their lord and master...
THAT conclusion is fully and completely consistent with Occam's Razor...
are completely blinded by your own ignorance, bias and conspiracy world that you can't see how nonsensical your interpretation is (absolutely, definitely true).
It's been my experience that those who are truly blinded by ignorance (or, in this case, political ideology) always try to project their own failings onto others. :D
Michale.....
Chris1962 [290],
For the last time. The whole point of filing with the SEC is to inform the government of who is actually managing the company. If you are only CEO "on paper" and you file with the SEC you have committed a felony. Its the law. The government doesn't care what names or titles you've got on your organizational chart, they want to know who is responsible for managing the corporation.
We're not saying you can't be CEO on paper only. We're saying its illegal.
@[309]
"I never claimed Obama wasn't an American"
Lol what? So what we arguing about then. Debate over. Obama is American. Thank you for finally agreeing.
Michale [289],
"The American people have spoken"?! Its November already? The election's over? Who won? How come no one told me?!
All I have said is that there are inconsistencies with so much of Obama's paper trail that it is, based on the principle of Occam's Razor, completely impossible that it's ALL innocent mistakes, typos, mis-recollections, mis-prints and all the other garbage that the Left uses to cover for their lord and master...
Looks like I left a dangling marsupial there...
What I am saying is that, by the principle of Occam's Razor, which is more likely??
1. That all the multitude of errors in ALL of Obama's paperwork are the result of mis-speaks, typos, errors, mis-prints, and all the other garbage the Left uses to cover their lord and master..
OR
B. There is something wrong with Obama's paperwork...
Employing the precepts of Occam's Razor, it's clear that B is the simplest and most logical explanation...
Michale.....
LD
"The American people have spoken"?! Its November already? The election's over? Who won? How come no one told me?!
The American people have spoken insofar as the importance of the Romney/Bain connection..
They really don't give a rat's ass....
The only people who care are the Hysterical Left and they are going to vote for Obama anyways...
Hell, Obama could certify that he is a card-carrying agent of Iran, the full Osama Bin Laden reincarnated and the Hysterical Left would STILL vote for him...
Michale.....
"Hell, Obama could certify that he is a card-carrying agent of Iran, the full Osama Bin Laden reincarnated and the Hysterical Left would STILL vote for him...
It would not surprise me in the slightest if you actually believed all of these things...
Ok which hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions:
1. Obama released two American birth certificates. Therefore Obama is an American.
2. Obama released two American birth certificates. But (and I quote you) it has "MANY discrepancies, typos, mistakes and misunderstandings...
Err, if I were to hand you a twenty-dollar bill that appeared to feautre many discrepancies, typos and mistakes, the assumption would be that I had handed you a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill.
Either you guys can't count (could be true) or can't read (also could be true) or can't understand simple concepts (definitely true) or are completely blinded by your own ignorance, bias and conspiracy world that you can't see how nonsensical your interpretation is (absolutely, definitely true).
You're forgetting the third option, michty: maybe you simply can't distinguish between your own personal opinions and facts and, therefore, forever find yourself beating your head against the wall whenever anyone doesn't accept your opinion as actual, factual, gospel truth.
"1. That all the multitude of errors in ALL of Obama's paperwork are the result of mis-speaks, typos, errors, mis-prints, and all the other garbage the Left uses to cover their lord and master..
OR
B. There is something wrong with Obama's paperwork...
Employing the precepts of Occam's Razor, it's clear that B is the simplest and most logical explanation..
"
Good job. We might make a reasonable person out of you yet!
Let's take your premise as you applied it. Let's say I agree that using Occam's Razor you have established that there probably are mistakes in Obama's paperwork (I don't agree but we'll go with it). Let's apply Occam's Razor again:
1. The mistakes in Obama's paperwork are human errors which are very common in hospital paperwork.
2. The mistakes in Obama's birth certificate mean that Obama deliberately released a fake birth certificate, made up a bunch of stuff on it, was not born in America, lied to everyone about the birth certificate, got away for it for decades, is attempting to cover it up and is part of a massive Government evil conspiracy by secret Kenyan agents to install a Kenyan as President (ok I don't know what you think the motive is, since there isn't really one, but let's go with this lol)...
Don't you see that the assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FAKE always carried MORE ASSUMPTIONS than the plain assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS REAL!?!? This is Occam's Razor being applied to the problem. THINK ABOUT IT!
I should've bolded the last part:
Don't you see that the assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FAKE always carries MORE ASSUMPTIONS than the plain assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS REAL!?!? This is Occam's Razor being applied to the problem. THINK ABOUT IT!
I'll show you. Here is where the assumptions lie:
1. Birth certificate is real:
-Obama is American
2. Birth certificate is fake:
- Obama is not American
- Obama lied for years
- Obama put out two fake birth certificates
- Many other things Obama says might not be true
- The Hawaiian DOH lied
- Many Doctors, Nurses etc lied
- Hawaiian State representatives lied
- Massive Government cover up and conspiracy etc etc etc.
I made it even easier for you so that this time you can actually count the assumptions!
1. human errors which are very common in hospital paperwork.
Assumes facts not in evidence..
Besides, we're not JUST talking about the Birth Certificate.
There are discrepancies all up and down Obama's paper trail..
His Selective Service card is a forgery.
He has a Connecticut based SSN, even though he has absolutely NO connection with the state.
His time at Columbia is questionable
and so on and so on and so on..
So, YOU are claiming that ALL of these are the result of human error...
If this is true, then Obama must be the most unluckiest guy in the history of unlucky guys..
Seriously, dood. You don't HONESTLY believe that all of Obama's paper trail is on the up and up, do you???
You sound like a religious fanatic who won't entertain even the THOUGHT that there is no god.. (which there isn't by the bi)..
Political fanatics are just as much a pain in the ass as religious fanatics are...
Thank the gods, that I don't have to mess with any of that crap.. Comes from being an NPA :D
Michale....
If you are only CEO both "on paper" and you file with the SEC you have committed a felony.
Mmm, no. If you're a CEO "on paper," and you file with the SEC, affirming that you are, indeed, the CEO, that's not a felony. That's the God's-honest truth.
But, hey, let's just cut to the chase and have a look at the paperwork, shall we, Lew? Put the SEC paperwork up and let's have a look at it, k? Oh, what's that? There is no paperwork to review? Nobody's seen any SEC filing? This is all assumption and speculation on the part of Team-O — otherwise known as spin?
You folks on the Left seriously need to learn how to distinguish pure spin (he MIGHT be; he COULD be; he MAY be; IF he did; IF he didn't) from statements of fact. Nobody from Team-O has even levied an actual allegation that a felony had been committed. There's no evidence. No paperwork to point to. Just plain old-fashioned spin. And here you are, Day Three, still struggling to get some meat to stick to the skeleton. There's no meat, Lew. A legal eagle such as yourself might've notice that by now.
Let's take your premise as you applied it. Let's say I agree that using Occam's Razor you have established that there probably are mistakes in Obama's paperwork (I don't agree but we'll go with it). Let's apply Occam's Razor again:
1. The mistakes in Obama's paperwork are human errors which are very common in hospital paperwork.
2. The mistakes in Obama's birth certificate mean that Obama deliberately released a fake birth certificate
Putting aside that there are people in this world who really, truly, actually do falsify documents for self-serving reasons, you're casually neglecting to factor in that other documents show discrepancies, as well, michty. That's what's raising the questions. Oh, but you've decided to neatly omit that part of it, haven't you? I'm guessing it's because too many discrepancie across a NUMBER of documents makes it a little more difficult to explain away.
Putting aside that there are people in this world who really, truly, actually do falsify documents for self-serving reasons, you're casually neglecting to factor in that other documents show discrepancies, as well, michty. That's what's raising the questions. Oh, but you've decided to neatly omit that part of it, haven't you? I'm guessing it's because too many discrepancie across a NUMBER of documents makes it a little more difficult to explain away.
And THAT is exactly my point. Many documents across a broad span of Obama's life and the world, all have problems..
Like I said, either Obama is the unluckiest guy in the whole universe when it comes to his paper trail, or something else is going on...
Occam's Razor clearly indicates that the latter is the most likely and logical of possibilities...
Michale.....
Chris1962 [305],
Been there, done that.
Go back to [61] and continue on without me. I've got better things to do.
LD,
Chris1962 [305],
Been there, done that.
Actually, I posted #305..
This is why it's always better to quote what you are responding to, rather than throw up a bunch of numbers.
As to the point, I understand. The One can do no wrong...
Many felt the same way about Bush, so I guess you are in ... "good"??? Well, you have company anyways.. :D
Michale.....
Go back to [61] and continue on without me. I've got better things to do.
IOW, there's been no actual allegation made, and no SEC filing (or any other paperwork) to review, and it's finally beginning to occur to you that you've been spending all this time doing nothing but peddling spin.
IOW, there's been no actual allegation made, and no SEC filing (or any other paperwork) to review, and it's finally beginning to occur to you that you've been spending all this time doing nothing but peddling spin.
I bet Obama wishes they would have realized that before they blew thru 100 cool million bucks... :D
Obama got NO bang for a whole buttload of bucks...
Michale
Why do you think the CEO of Enron is in jail? Because the Judge had a personal opinion that the CEO carries legal responsibility for the actions of the company????
Mmm, no one at Bain did do anything illegal, michty.
@ [323] LD "Been there, done that."
Read my posts in 302-303 LD. This is what arguing with people who don't listen is like. They argue on, when you disprove their views they change the subject and then come back to their original points completely ignoring the fact that you've already addressed them!
A. BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- I have shown you every 'fact' you posted about the birth certificate was wrong
- I have shown you that fact-check, which in posts [18] and [20] was your best friend, has disproven your birth certificate theory many times. All of a sudden you went silent about fact check.
- I have shown you that if you correctly apply Occam's Razor, the conclusion is obvious. All of a sudden Occam's Razor wasn't your friend anymore.
- You have presented NOTHING, absolutely NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE that (i) this birth certificate is a fake or (ii) he was born somewhere else.
- There are no 'problems' with his birth certificates. These were invented by YOU and other conspiracy nuts!
B. TRANSPARENCY
- This is an easy no brainer. All I need to do is repeat AGAIN something I have repeated before:
Tax Records:
- Obama 12 years (in full)
- Romney 1 year (not full)
School Records
- Obama not released
- Romney not released
Birth Certificate
- Obama released (i) certificate of live birth and (ii) long form birth certificate
- Romney released only (i) certificate of live birth
- Obama is more transparent than Romney. Fact. Everytime I post this you ignore it, I expect no different this time.
C. BAIN
There are two lines of argument:
(i) Is Romney Responsible
- Both LD and I 100% agree yes, as CEO he is not just responsible but legally responsible.
- RE[327] Chris "Mmm, no one at Bain did do anything illegal, michty." This is my point! If they HAD done something illegal Romney would be 100000% responsible. There is absolutely not even any question, his name is on the SEC filings = he is responsible. That is how business works! This is why the CEO OF ENRON WENT TO JAIL not the managers or managing directors. HIS NAME was on the paperwork=HE IS RESPONSIBLE.
(ii) Are The Attacks Successful
- In this line I will say at least Michale and Chris have put up some reasonable arguments (!). There is absolutely a case to be made that they aren't being successful and you have made this case using solid facts, reason and logic (!!).
- I still believe it is not the case but this is by no means conclusive and definitely open for debate (unlike all the previous issues I mentioned which are much more straight foward).
If you wish to make any further comments on (C) (ii) I am happy to contribute. There is good debate to be had there.
Any other comments on any of the other ones I am out and done with. These are simple issues where there is no debate - you are both just repeating yourself over and over again living in your own fantasy world, ignoring all evidence against you...
Ya know, Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple until the day he died..
He took a leave of absence a year or so prior...
Does that mean Jobs was responsible for everything that Apple did after he left???
Well, probably not, because Obama clearly said that Jobs really didn't build Apple into the huge world-wide conglomerate it became..
They guys who pave the road helped Jobs, so they should get stock in APPLE, right???
Such a target-rich environment.. :D
Which brings up ANOTHER interesting question..
Why aren't the people who built the roads and bridges to BAIN being blamed for Bain's outsourcing????
Michale.....
Michale....
My last comment on (C)(i) because you made this far too easy "Does that mean Jobs was responsible for everything that Apple did after he left???"
YES! LOL. 10000000000% YES!! He was STILL the CEO and signed all their filings.
He went to their AGM (CEO's are required to)!
He signed off all their papers at the AGM!
He gave a big speech at the AGM!
All of this on a leave of absence because HE WAS STILL CEO SO STILL RESPONSIBLE!
Maybe now you'll finally get how it works? (Again I'm probably being too naive)
So, Jobs was on his deathbed and STILL was responsible for the slave labor and violating the child labor laws in China at Foxxconn...
Wow...
Yer pretty harsh...
So, let's get to the question I asked last..
Are the people who built the roads and bridges to Bain responsible for Bain outsourcing jobs???
Obama said they are, but I just wanted to run that by you....
Michale.....
Ya know.. I think I am on to something here..
Obama says that American entrepreneurs do not create their businesses.. That they need to share their success with the guys who built the roads and the guys who built the bridges and the guys who clean the toilets...
If we accept that as true (which we MUST or else we get accused of being racist) then it seems to me that Romney shouldn't take ALL the blame for Bain outsourcing jobs...
Let's haul in the guys who built the roads and the guys who built the bridges and the guys who clean the toilets before the court of public opinion and shame them for allowing BAIN to outsource jobs..
What ya'all say!?? Who'se with me!!!??? :D
As an aside...
THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN POSTS!!!????
CW, that has GOT to be some kind of record!!!! :D
Michale.....
I bet Obama wishes they would have realized that before they blew thru 100 cool million bucks...
For a media effort of that magnitude, you'd think some strategist over at Team-O would have had the good sense to focus-group these ideas BEFORE blowing through $100M. A disaster-check focus group costs a whole helluva lot less than a month's-long campaign across multiple states. Hell, an overnight internal POLL would've told them that this tactic wasn't gonna cut through. I get the funny feeling that O's surrounded by wall-to-wall liberals, all firmly convinced that the majority of Americans quite naturally shares their class-warfare, business-bashing, wealth-redistribution, government-dependency mindset. It's like an impossible notion, to Team-O, that this might not go over well. Same exact blunder that went on with CrapCare, with O completely ignoring what the American people were ACTUALLY thinking and saying, secure in the belief that everyone would quite naturally come around to seeing things their way. They never seem to learn from their past mistakes.
I said a couple weeks ago that the Bain attacks would go nowhere.. That people weren't interested, that all the cared about was getting SOMEONE in there who knew something about economics.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....
Obama had to ignore my advice and go spend $100 million...
That would have bought me a LOT of beer.. :D
I get the funny feeling that O's surrounded by wall-to-wall liberals, all firmly convinced that the majority of Americans quite naturally shares their class-warfare, business-bashing, wealth-redistribution, government-dependency mindset.
Yep.. It's an echo chamber.. And anyone who dares speak out and say, "Ya know, people.. I think we might be frak'in things up.." well.. You know what happens to THEM! The MSM/Journo's are sic'ed on them....
Michale.....
I'm posting this comment on both threads that are spinning out of control, here.
315 Comments? Really? Birtherism? Racism?
Sigh.
OK, guys, I'm going to call a halt here. I'll turn off the thread if you don't settle down, as we're so far off the thread it's not even six degrees from Kevin Bacon anymore.
Michale -
You are disproving your own argument. If Obama isn't "intelligent" then how did he mastermind the fake birth certificate, convince dozens of people (some Republican officeholders, I believe) to lie for him in a giant conspiracy, and plot his own election to the presidency from his cradle? Or, perhaps, build a time machine and go back in time to insert notices in contemporary Hawaiian papers?
ANY answer you give to that question other than "Birtherism is nonsense" disproves your other point, because if it were true, then Obama would be an evil genius.
Seriously, though, I don't want to hear the answer to that question. That horse just ain't dead, it has fully decomposed.
michty6 -
OK, you're new here, so I'll try to clarify things a bit. Michale lives to argue with Lefties. He might not admit it, but it is his one true joy in life (other than his fine wife, who must put up with a bazillion times more stress than he ever causes here).
He will take outrageous positions just to get under your skin. It's a given.
Now, I understand perfectly what you're saying. The only presidential candidate (as far as I know) in ALL of US history who is asked to prove his Americanness by showing the world his birth certificate happens to be black. That's probably no accident, to put it mildly, when you consider just two Republicans who have run in my lifetime, one of whom was born outside any US State, and one of whom was actually born in Mexico (John McCain and George Romney). The question briefly came up for both of them. In McCain's place, Congress agreed -- during the election, mind you -- that McCain was OK to serve. Romney (elder) is a more interesting case, because his ancestors fled the US to avoid US law. But because George's parents (Mitt's grandparents) were US citizens, he was deemed to be a "natural born" citizen as well. The term has never been legally defined in a court of law. By US law, you are automatically a US citizen if ONE parent is also a US citizen NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH YOU WERE BORN. So even if the birthers were right IT WOULD NOT MATTER because his mom was a US Citizen -- same as George Romney's. Making both of them "natural born."
And yet, Obama's the only one who bred conspiracy theories. So I do understand perfectly what you're saying.
But leaping from there to charges of racism is a bigger leap, and one that crosses the line into ad hominem attack. So, you've been warned.
So, to everyone -
Take a deep breath. Calm down. Don't make me start turning off comment threads -- I've never had to do so before, so let's all remember to respect each other's opinions a bit more.
Michale, don't play so innocent. You know full well that if you make a completely unsubstantiated charge that affirmative action helped out Obama because he's just so stupid, that people are (1) going to think you're stupid yourself, and (2) going to respond to the racial component of what you are saying (yes, "affirmative action" has a racial component... duh). I know the right has almost perfected the whole "playing the reverse racism card" but we all know that's not who you really are.
michty6 -
You're never going to get the "last word" with Michale. I don't know that it's ever happened (anyone? anyone remember achieving this feat?) here. The best you can hope for is to get to the point where you just dismiss him and refuse to rise to his taunts. Don't worry, while Michale often posts the most comments, most readers of this blog are actually seeing things from your point of view. We've just all learned the point to start ignoring Michale, that's all.
OK, that's it, I've got to write today's column. Play nice, everyone.
-CW
This is my point! If they HAD done something illegal Romney would be 100000% responsible.
But there was no illegality, so what, pray tell, is the Left babbling about? There isn't even an allegation of illegality. There isn't even an SEC document to be looked at. There is absolutely nothing here but a steaming load of spin, and THIS is how O plans on winning in November???
Chris "For a media effort of that magnitude, you'd think some strategist over at Team-O would have had the good sense to focus-group these ideas BEFORE blowing through $100M. "
Michale "I said a couple weeks ago that the Bain attacks would go nowhere.. "
Gallup poll shows Romney and Obama neck and neck going into July, look what happens in July: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Every other poll shows the same pattern. Magically during July something appears to have happened to give Obama a 2-4pt (depending on poll) shot in the arm.
And this is during the summer months when the jobs numbers are WEAKEST too.
Going to be a long autumn/winter for Romney...
Magically during July something appears to have happened to give Obama a 2-4pt (depending on poll) shot in the arm.
There's nothing unusual about sliding up and down within the margin of error. This is one of things that drives Chris W. and me (poll junkies, who love this stuff) crazy about O's numbers. He slides up and down but rarely breaks his ceiling, no matter what he does (gay rights; immigration; CrapCare; etc.) which is 48%/49%, or dips below around 44%. And on the rare occasions that he hits 50%, he never stays there. And he doesn't even get traditional bumps for his "victories." So that suggests one of two things: There's either something wrong with the polling orgs or we've just got an electorate that's made up its mind already, with very few undecideds out there.
But putting the national polls aside, I'd be a tad concerned about the state polls, if I were Team-O. He's losing traction in places he had won by a landslide in 2008; plus, he just took a hit in Virginia, which threw that rather important state into a dead heat. This is not exactly the shape the incumbent wants to be in, four months out from the election — not to mention, on the heels of a $100M anti-competitor campaign.
Michale: I said a couple weeks ago that the Bain attacks would go nowhere.. That people weren't interested, that all the cared about was getting SOMEONE in there who knew something about economics.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....
Wow, things are even worse than I thought. They ARE doing polling, and a whole lot of it, and they STILL blew $100K on that campaign:
Obama Campaign Spends More than $2.6 Million for Polling—in June
Campaign disclosure forms for Obama for America, President Obama's reelection team, reveal a heavy emphasis on public opinion polling. According to the forms, in the month of June alone, Obama for America spent a whopping $2,639,265.72 on polling.
This appears to be a record this election cycle. And it does not include money spent on polling by the Democratic party in the month of June.... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-spends-more-26-million-polling-june_648846.html
Could his $100M campaign have actually been intended to shore up his own base, I wonder? THAT would at least make sense. But it would also mean that Team-O's internal polling is showing him in worse shape than we're seeing in the public polls.
And he's also burning through his war chest. Check out the end of that article:
Meanwhile, looking at the June numbers, the AP reports, "President Barack Obama's re-election campaign spent more than it collected in June."
Chris1962
@[338]"There's nothing unusual about sliding up and down within the margin of error. This is one of things that drives Chris W. and me (poll junkies, who love this stuff) crazy about O's numbers. He slides up and down but rarely breaks his ceiling, no matter what he does (gay rights; immigration; CrapCare; etc.) which is 48%/49%, or dips below around 44%. And on the rare occasions that he hits 50%, he never stays there. And he doesn't even get traditional bumps for his "victories." So that suggests one of two things: There's either something wrong with the polling orgs or we've just got an electorate that's made up its mind already, with very few undecideds out there."
Wow - solid rational, logical argument - I didn't know you had it in you ;). I totally agree, these seem like very valid observations.
@[339]
"Could his $100M campaign have actually been intended to shore up his own base, I wonder? THAT would at least make sense. But it would also mean that Team-O's internal polling is showing him in worse shape than we're seeing in the public polls."
I think you answered the reason for this spending pretty clearly yourself in post [333], quoting you again: "you'd think some strategist over at Team-O would have had the good sense to focus-group these ideas BEFORE blowing through $100M"
I'd guess they have been lining up tonnes of new attacks and are polling to see which will be their favoured ones...
Trillions held in off-shore tax havens: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/super-rich-offshore-havens_n_1692608.html?utm_hp_ref=business