If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   Bainers are the new Birthers   (redstate.com) divider line 213
    More: Fail, Condi Rice, religion of peace, Rumsfeld, United States of America, Guy Benson  
•       •       •

5735 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2012 at 12:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-15 12:49:25 AM
65 votes:

Weaver95: the GOP is pretty upset about Bain Capital. very interesting indeed.


Because they're terrified of it. Romney represents all that is bad with America. A grifter that goes from town to town and lays waste to it.

Here's the thing... everyone has known a "Romney", and a lot of us have worked for one. A lot of people know what I'm talking about... they've worked at a company for 10 or 20 years and have been treated equitably and usually like family by the owners. Then, one day Romney comes to town and buys the company. The first thing that happens is vacation time is cut, 401k/pension is slashed, health insurance costs go up, raises are frozen, costs are cut. Then the new management comes in and starts telling you how to do your job, their way. Before you know it, you're no longer a family... you're just a piece of a equipment that exists to generate profit for them.

And one day, all the people that worked together as family get to watch the liquidation company pack up the office and equipment.

Months later you lose your life savings, then you lose your car, then your house, then your pension. Years later, you turn on the TV and see the guy that made all that happen and he wants to be president of the United States, and spends his days saying he'll run the country like he ran your company.


THAT is why the Republicans are scared. They can't escape it. Hell, with McCain, his money came from beer and Kerry's came from Ketchup, and Romney's comes from harvesting the nest-eggs and blood of the middle class to he can sell it to China and fatten his bank account in the Caymans.
2012-07-15 12:34:10 AM
13 votes:
Yeah... except the Bain theory isn't based on a racist idea that if he's black, he cannot be an American Citizen and he must be from Africa. The only people that think Obama is not from here are bigots, while the Bain theory is based on a simple fact: Romney provided fraudulent information to the SEC, and he's admitted as much.
2012-07-15 12:53:20 AM
12 votes:
Lets look at this:

Bain:
People say Romney was still working for Bain Capital when Romney says he was not.

Evidence: OFFICIAL SEC records STATE he was working for Bain those years

Birthers: Say Obama was not born in the US.

Evidence: OFFICIAL STATE RECORDS say Obama WAS Born in the US.

Yeah, one has official evidence supporting it the other has official evidence that says the opposite.

How is that the same again?
2012-07-15 12:40:56 AM
12 votes:
Looks like Obama is barking up the right tree...
2012-07-15 01:45:54 AM
11 votes:
I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THIS WALL O' TEXT

Meet the Bainers - they are the members of Team Obama demanding proof from Mitt Romney that he is a liar or a felon. Next they'll ask when he stopped beating his wife.

Not really. The main problem with the loaded question "when did you stop beating your wife?" is that it presupposes the answer that the person has ever beaten their wife. It's a perfectly valid question to ask of somebody in, say, abuse treatment.

Much in the same vein, asking Mitt Romney if he's a liar is a perfectly valid question when he claimed something that we have material evidence is false.

Even FactCheck.org and the Washington Post are unpersuaded by Team Obama's hyperbole.

So? Is FactCheck.org any more or less reliable than any other person checking the facts? For a person who whines about logical fallacies (well, misidentifying a legitimate question as a loaded one, but still, he can clearly conceive of a logical fallacy), why the appeal to authority?

For example, from FactCheck.org:

On a media conference call about the Globe story, Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said the story proves that Romney had "full control" of Bain during this time and "therefore directly responsible"

Romney is indeed listed as, and I quote the SEC filing, "the controlling person of Bain Capital".

The Washington Post's Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, rebutted the Boston Globe story in a July 12 piece. "Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role," Kessler writes. We agree.

Of course you do. And of course, anybody would. Merely holding shares doesn't give anybody decision making power. Are they voting shares? Non-voting shares? Did you vote against the majority for these major decisions?

The trick here is minimization. Just because you are listed as an owner [first minimization: an owner, not the owner, as a sole shareholder is] does not mean you have a managerial role.

Of course, that isn't W. Mitt Romney's only listing in the SEC filings either:

Bain Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bain Capital"), is the sole
------------
managing partner of the BCIP entities. Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole
shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain
Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital.

Mr. W. Mitt Romney isn't simply a shareholder. He's the shareholder, along with being the sole director, which is a managerial capacity and a managerial capacity no other person shares, the Chief Executive Officer, giving him final decision over other officers of the company, as well as the president. And the controlling person, as noted before.

Notice how those bits went unmentioned?

In fact, if you go to the Washing Post article FactCheck.org mentioned, and press CTRL-F and type in any of the following:

- Director will return no results.
- President will return three results, two about how Mitt Romney is a presidential candidate and one a side bar about the 2012 election, none of them as the president of Bain.
- CEO will only appear in the comments section of the article.
- Chief (as in Chief Executive Officer) will return zero results.
- Controlling (as in controlling person) will return zero results.

If that seems fishy to you, it's because it is. It is, as mentioned, textbook minimisation -- which is, indeed as Wikipedia mentions, a form of deception.

It's a woman calling her boyfriend violent for punching her in the face (which, for our example, he did do), while omitting that the reason he punched her in the face was to get her to stop stabbing him with a knife (which, for our example, she also did, but she's deliberately leaving it out). By selecting which facts we focus on, and then exaggerating the impact of those facts (JUST BEING A SHAREHOLDER DOESN'T MAKE YOU A MANAGER) while omitting other, very, very relevant facts is not the truth.

It's not a half truth, or a technical truth.

It's a lie.

To make it even more recursive and meta and weird, check this out. Remember above, where I quoted FactCheck.org citing WaPo as evidence that FactCheck's original filing was correct?

In that same FactCheck article, they say this:

"If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn't be talking about a felony," she said.

Huh, wait a minute. 'Cause when I follow FactCheck to WaPo's article, I see WaPo saying this:

FactCheck.Org, July 2, 2012
.

If the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999....


And that links back to FactCheck's article here:
FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet
Romney Committing Felonies?

If the Obama campaign is correct, then Romney is guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, committing a felony. But we don't see evidence of that.


Well now, hold on a second. See this? See what FactCheck is doing here? They're citing WaPo as evidence their original conclusion is right, and WaPo is citing something FactCheck said that says their original conclusion is wrong.

So which is it, FactCheck? Would Romney be or not be committing a felony? Because it appears you're walking back your statement.

And, for that matter, how come you didn't FactCheck yourselves?

If I can't rely on you to correctly conclude that Romney wouldn't be guilty of a felony on July 12th, why do you expect me to rely on you to correctly conclude that he would be on July 2nd?

For that matter, how rigorous is your "FactChecking", and what you expect your readers to believe, if you offer two mutually contradictory conclusions on two different days citing yourself through a proxy source as being right?

If your July 12 article is right, then perforce your July 2 article is wrong. If your July 2 article is wrong, then what reassurances do I have that you've stepped up your rigour in fact-checking? If your July 2 article is wrong about this felony accusation against Romney, and you can't even get the law right, then why should I trust you that you've properly scrutinized the SEC filings? We've seen conclusively that you omit mention of anything other than his shareholder status, so I have to wonder if you displayed the same laziness in reading the SEC filings for your July 12 story as you did the SEA law for your July 2 filings. Which is it? One, or both? Because at this point, it certainly can't be neither.
2012-07-15 01:02:10 AM
11 votes:

Weaver95: oh I know. i'm just amazed that someone on Team Romney didn't see this issue coming a mile off. I mean - its the obvious ploy, right? Obama lobs a softball at Romney to get a sneak peak at how he's going to handle the obvious stuff and then BAM! Romney trips over the easy pitch, falls flat on his face and breaks his nose.

i'm amazed at this.



It's only the first inning. Eventually his tax returns will come out and show the real horrors of Romney's wealth, like those movies where the rich guy has the corpses of 30 children he raped under is house... or he'll keep them secret and people will imagine the worst, and they probably won't even be close.

My guess, is that Romney hid piles of money in Switzerland and was one of those "tax evaders" you read about when the IRS offers them amnesty for paying back taxes and penalties. That's my first bet. The second is that he made money from company that would look really bad, like a state-run enterprise of Moamar Qaudafi, or Al Assad, or Hugo Chavez or the Bin Laden family.

Think of this perspective... John McCain has seen the tax returns and figured Sarah Palin was less of a liability. Let that sink in for a minute.
2012-07-15 12:36:05 AM
11 votes:
The fact that they're trying to paint SEC documents as some sort of crazy conspiracy is hilarious.
2012-07-15 01:08:42 AM
10 votes:
Ever notice how when rightists want to accuse everyone else of the WORST. POSSIBLE. THING. they always have to compare it to something they did?
2012-07-15 12:37:53 AM
9 votes:
The author is an idiot.
2012-07-15 08:59:52 AM
8 votes:

hubiestubert: The GOP should have taken a few months after Obama's election, and I remember when I was derided for this when he took office, to sit down and take a hard look at how McCain went so horribly awry. Not just with the choice of Palin as VP, but in how the whole thing played out. Taken a long hard look at policy positions, where the nation was heading, how the financial implosion came about, and folks decided within the part to just toss that opportunity for a teachable moment and look at what ails the party, and instead, double down on DERP and idiocy.


It's far too late for that. The GOP establishment doesn't realise it's DERP. In the 70's the party started pandering to the religious right, the southern bible belt, who used to be solid Democrats but were now disillusioned over the Democrats support of civil rights. They sold their soul for votes, essentially. Over the past 40 years these extreme people who were courted into the party weaved their way into the very fabric of the party establishment and slowly began kicking the more moderate people out. I mean just look at the mere fact that the term "RINO" even exists; it goes to show you what kind of witch-hunt is going on in the GOP in their quest for ideological purity. If there are any moderates left it's because they either live in an area where the fundies can't hurt them yet (mostly the northeast), or it's because they don't speak up anymore because that'll get them tarred and feathered.

This is a long transition that's entering its end state. People keep saying that the Republicans erred in courting the Tea Party, but that misses a fundamental fact; the Tea Party was never a separate party, it was a rebranding of the Republican party because they learned that the (R) had become a liability after Bush. These were not new party members, they were and have been Republicans for a very long time. The party is so far shifted to insanity that it's now impossible for them to step back and say "Hmm maybe we shouldn't be so crazy", because crazy people don't even realise they're crazy. They step back and say "Well we didn't win because we didn't try hard enough. So let's try even harder!", which results in "doubling down on DERP" to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

So that's the problem. The inmates are now running the asylum and they're literally incapable of understanding that they've lost their minds. Just look at RandomName above. He's flipping out and screaming about how demented everyone else is for thinking that actual evidence of fraud means anything. He's completely incapable of understanding just how insane his viewpoints are, which simply makes him dig in, ignore reality even more, and scream a lot, blaming everything that's wrong in his life on "the opposition". It's gotten so bad that anyone who says anything that isn't 100% lock-step with the party line is automatically labelled a "lib".

They will not stop until either the party completely fractures, or the country fractures. I just hope the party will crumble first.
2012-07-15 12:34:08 AM
8 votes:
the GOP is pretty upset about Bain Capital. very interesting indeed.
2012-07-15 01:15:55 AM
7 votes:

Genevieve Marie: If Obama really can get that bit of truth across to people, he'll blow Mitt Romney away in the election.


He'll do it. I know he will.

He could go all George Bush and try to hammer the message home for months on end, but I think Obama is smart than that.

A few weeks ago he starts in on Bain... plants a seed and then backs off a bit. Then for 3 weeks he does ad after ad of why his ideas are great. Then, he turns back to Bain. Just watch, in a week or two the airwaves will be filled with Obama's achievements and ideas... then he'll turn the dial up a bit on Bain, etc.


So, it may seem foolish for him to relent on Bain, but it's actually a pretty solid strategy. Fire a couple of salvos at Bain and when they are ducking for cover, Obama can put out a positive message. If you've noticed, in each of these rounds so far, the salvos is larger and more damaging each time.

This is July. Obama is going to lay waste to Romney come October.
2012-07-15 01:02:17 AM
7 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: Bontesla: I really thought I'd enjoy this scandal more but talking with Republicans brings out the violence within me.

i'm absolutely fascinated watching the GOP flub this whole debate over bain capital.

What's to flub? They have a clear choice... admit their "Job Creator" (blessings and peace be upon him) sent jobs overseas, destroyed companies for a profit and practiced what most people would call an abhorrent mutation of "capitalism"... or they can admit he lied to the SEC.


There is a third option:

img.photobucket.com
2012-07-15 09:10:18 AM
6 votes:

LordJiro: MeinRS6: GhostFish: MeinRS6: The Bain crap is going no where.

Liberals are desperate because Obama sucks ass as president.

Laughable. You can do better than that. Put a little feeling into it.

But it's the truth. You'll only have to wait a few weeks to see I'm right.

Obama's team will milk this set of lies for as long as they can, then they will come up with a new set of lies and the Bain stuff will go by the wayside.

I'd bet a lot of money that we won't be talking about Bain in October.

What lies? Either Romney lied to the American people, and didn't leave Bain when he said he did, or lied to the SEC about working there. Are you disputing these facts?


He is accepting Quantum Political Superposition. Romney exists in BOTH states simultaneously. He has never lied, because truth is subjective in his mind. It is my biggest problem with the NeoCons who came into the party, because they accepted an observation in philosophy, and turned it into an article of faith.

Subjective reality IS an important concept. Understanding how one person's view of reality is shaped by their perception IS an important concept. A young woman who is mad at her mother because she perceived an offhand comment as being malicious IS truly hurt by that comment. The pain is real, the anger is real, and it is based on her perception of that comment. Likewise, it helps to understand the mother's confusion, because for her, she didn't mean anything by the words, and can't understand the reaction. Understanding how perception shapes subjective reality is necessary to understand folks' actions and reactions.

Many NeoCons, and those who wanted to run with them, took a far more radical view of this phenomenon and instead decided that they could shape reality with pure will alone. Their belief would make reality conform to their beliefs. Which is great if you're playing Mage: The Ascension, but not so great if you actually live in the real world and have to do more than toss dice and record Paradox points. That there are those who promulgate this erroneous vision of subjective reality and promote an active refutation of facts in favor of belief, and prey upon those who haven't the wit or understanding the basis of the philosophical underpinnings of the phenomenon is damning. And frustrating to anyone who understands the difference...
2012-07-15 08:41:17 AM
6 votes:
What's sad about this, is that no matter how this shakes down, there will be no sane choice on the Republican Presidential ticket. Romney can step down from the candidacy, and then that leads to chaos on the Convention floor, and we will seen RON PAUL make his bid, and go on like a crazy version of Granpa Jones--without a sweet version of Nellie Bly or Down The Old Plank Road to accompany things--and the DERP turned to 11 for the rest of the Silly Season. Or he can hold out, and there will be this spectre of a further investigation, and his support from the folks who he has been connected to quietly pulling back to avoid drawing further attention to themselves.

What is amazing, is that it took this long to bring this particular spectre into the light. Romney should have never been anywhere near the ticket. Not with his record. Not with his "fluid" relationship with facts and figures. Huntsman or Johnson might not have the stones to beat Obama in a straight election without these shenanigans in the background, but they would have made it at least a fair and compelling race.

This? This only profits the scrambling of PR firms, spin doctors, and sells ad revenue for the media. It is wildly damaging to the process, and undermines folks faith in it. No matter what, folks will blame Obama for the result, rather than look to the GOP leadership who knew this was not just a skeleton in the closet, but have acted for years to cover it up. For years. And rather than look to the folks who have been actively engaged in shoving aside real and substantive vetting, folks will play the "Ignore the man behind the curtain!" and then blame EVERYONE else rather than their own damn selves.

Mind you: I have never thought Romney to be qualified for any office. Not Governor. Not even for the Board with the UMaine system. He has shown at every time he's been in control of other folks' money, that he is interested ONLY in steering that cash into buddies' hands, and while in the private sector, that is something for the shareholders to address, in any sort of public trust, it is dangerous. Folks didn't want to listen when it was brought up in his run for Governor, and likewise all the time that I've banged this particular drum during this election cycle. In this case, it is all catching up with Mitt, and I can't say that I'm happy about it, because it is a wasted opportunity to run a good candidate.

The GOP should have taken a few months after Obama's election, and I remember when I was derided for this when he took office, to sit down and take a hard look at how McCain went so horribly awry. Not just with the choice of Palin as VP, but in how the whole thing played out. Taken a long hard look at policy positions, where the nation was heading, how the financial implosion came about, and folks decided within the part to just toss that opportunity for a teachable moment and look at what ails the party, and instead, double down on DERP and idiocy. Play it up even, to court the Rabid Right as opposed to assessing position and policy and steer the party towards sanity. I cast my last vote in the Primary and then washed my hands of it, because the party refuses to make sane choices, and instead court the Crazy Train or the Corporatist interests that don't really care who's in office, so long as they get their tax breaks, and have protection from investigation to the how fast they are offshoring cash and jobs.

Because of this lack of anything like introspection, we got the field that made their runs this time around. And the nation is poorer in more ways than just the cash frittered away on candidates who sucked up donor cash on fruitless attempts, slushed into PACs that sent a fair amount of that cash to "consultants" and on things that are tantamount to laundering. The GOP has been sick awhile, and this election cycle is just a symptom of far deeper rot.
2012-07-15 02:12:26 AM
6 votes:
You know what the best part about Romney is...

He has spent his life trying to live up to his dad's success and outshine him, and today, his dad would be ashamed. He'd look at his son as just another empty suit that has raped and pillaged his way to a mountain of wealth. A son that has no convictions, no beliefs, no moral center, nothing. Without Mitt, George Romney may have been remembered in a good way, but after his son, the name Romney will forever be associated with the rape of the middle class and going whichever way the wind blows.
2012-07-15 01:14:30 AM
6 votes:
Look at it this way. Obama had the forethought to photoshop a birth certificate and plant a birth notice in a newspaper 45 years ago, knowing he was going to run for President.
Romney couldn't even plan ahead enough to clean up his tax forms.

Advantage: Obama
2012-07-15 03:16:37 AM
5 votes:
This whole thing reminds me of the scene in Casino where De Niro is yelling at the slot manager after finding out one of the machines was rigged.

"If you didn't know about it, you're incompetent. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, You're out!"
2012-07-15 01:28:08 AM
5 votes:
the thing that i find strange is that romney could provide documentation (his tax return, presumebly) that would put this whole thing to bed if he wanted to.

why doesn't mitt romney want to simply stop this issue? what is in those documents that he is so afraid of people seeing????
2012-07-15 01:19:41 AM
5 votes:
I'd like to point out how this whole issue separates Left and Right thinkers:

Left: This factual evidence suggests that Romney was involved with Bain while some vulture capital stuff went on. This supports my belief that he's a big business, tax-dodging, outsourcing jerk.

Right: I think Barack Hussein Obama is a kenyan muslim terrorist. I don't need evidence to support this claim and will actively ignore evidence suggesting otherwise.
2012-07-15 01:04:27 AM
5 votes:
Wait, so the defense is that "he didn't actually *do* anything, he just got a paycheck"?

When your defense is that you did less for a company than the guy who emptied the garbage cans, but you get paid more in one month than he does in ten years, you might just wanna rethink that strategy a tiny bit.

I think Mitt confuses OJ Simpson's acquittal with actual innocence.
2012-07-15 12:53:58 AM
5 votes:
I'm Mitt Romney and I want to be President. I want to be President because I know how economies work. I started a company, Bain Capital. I was successful and I helped others be successful. You know that store Staples? We started that store.

But, beyond that, I don't want you to know a goddamn thing about my time at Bain Capital.
2012-07-15 12:50:12 AM
5 votes:
Get back to me when the Bainers are arguing about a conspiracy that can only be explained by time-travel.
2012-07-15 04:00:57 AM
4 votes:

dookdookdook: IlGreven: These do not absolve responsibility, and acting like they do is anathema to a free and civil society.

Fine, but if - hypothetically, because I have no effing clue - this really is the kind of arrangement that happens all the time and all the lawyers and regulators and shareholders are pretty much fine with it, it's not really fair to suddenly get outraged about it just because the guy doing it is your political opponent. That's just so.....Fox.


It's not that it is or isn't fine or abnormal or whatever. If the CEO wants to fark off, that's his business. Similarly, if the janitor wants to fark off, that's also his business. And it just may be nothing bad happens because of it. Well, with the CEO there's really nobody to actually fire him, especially if he's the sole shareholder. But let's go back to the janitor for a minute.

Let's say there's a janitor that just farks off from his job every night for a month, and nobody notices and it's all gravy. Then one night somebody takes a huge shiat on the tile, and it doesn't get cleaned up, and the next morning it's a shiat smear everywhere. Maybe somebody even slips in the shiat, cartoon banana-peel style, because why not? Who's ultimately responsible for it? The janitor, obviously. He can't go "well I wasn't holding my farking mop and bucket at the time, so it's not my responsibility to deal with shiat." Of course it is.

Now, imagine if Bain Capital had gone off the rails and done something really bad. I don't know, they restructured a microprocessor firm to ship missile guidance chips to Iran or something really ridiculous. Do you think Romney can go, "sure I was the sole shareholder, the sole director, the CEO, the president, the controlling person, and still getting paid for all that, but it's not my responsibility?"

Arguing good faith only goes so far. You can argue good faith like if your subordinates intentionally mislead you, or something glaringly obvious like that where a person could reasonably not have a clue. "I just farked off but wanted to keep all the jobs and the paycheck" has fiduciary responsibility trump good faith. You have to at least make an effort to try to know what the fark's going on as the highest executive officer, the highest director, and the president, to claim that no reasonable person could have known what was happening.

It's like signing on as the pilot, getting into the damn pilot's seat and then arguing that you're not responsible for crashing the plane because you covered your farking eyes. It doesn't just strain credulity, it rapes it in a back alley, calls up all its friends to take a turn, and then leaves it for dead in a dumpster.
2012-07-15 02:28:41 AM
4 votes:
The ridiculous part about all of this? The GOP could not have possibly picked a more extreme example of everything wrong with our current financial predicament.

It's not enough that the economy was brought to the brink of outright collapse in 08 due to the 30+ year effort by Republicans to deregulate everything right down to the local dog-catchers. It's not enough that our manufacturing sector has been decimated by offshoring in the pursuit of short term quarterly profit gains. It's not enough that middle class wages have remained stagnant while CEO and executive pay have achieved exit velocity.

No. The GOP, with a straight face, just had to suggest to the American public: "Hey, why don't we have one of the architects of this grand pooch screw just run the whole show?"

If I had faith in the intelligence of the average Republican, I'd be inclined to view it as some kind of Kaufmanesque joke. As it stands, I'll just perceive it as outright contempt for voters.
2012-07-15 01:13:56 AM
4 votes:

quizzical: I don't think Romney did anything illegal. I do think he has been misrepresenting the degree to which he was in charge of Bain's actions.


Which, considering on his SEC forms, is the text "Mr. Romney was not involved in any way with the operations of Bain Capital", is very, very illegal.

It's a crime to lie on federal forms.
2012-07-15 01:08:55 AM
4 votes:

Bontesla: The author is an idiot.


No, he's just arguing against a straw man. The people that think Romney did something illegal at Bain are so few as to be essentially nonexistent, but as the author argues, all three of those imaginary people are wrong.

The bulk of people who bring up Bain, however, aren't asserting that anything illegal went on, they're saying it was blatantly unethical and also immoral, both of which are pretty much 100% correct in the vast majority of philosophical and religious systems.
2012-07-15 12:54:44 AM
4 votes:

Weaver95: Bontesla: I really thought I'd enjoy this scandal more but talking with Republicans brings out the violence within me.

i'm absolutely fascinated watching the GOP flub this whole debate over bain capital.


What's to flub? They have a clear choice... admit their "Job Creator" (blessings and peace be upon him) sent jobs overseas, destroyed companies for a profit and practiced what most people would call an abhorrent mutation of "capitalism"... or they can admit he lied to the SEC.
2012-07-15 12:52:40 AM
4 votes:

GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.


This wasn't auto-greened to try to spread what's in the article. It was auto-greened to get you frothing about what's in the article and to keep you posting and increasing page-views and clickthroughs.

It's not about Left or Right. It's about money.
2012-07-15 12:49:55 AM
4 votes:

Bontesla: I really thought I'd enjoy this scandal more but talking with Republicans brings out the violence within me.


i'm absolutely fascinated watching the GOP flub this whole debate over bain capital.
2012-07-15 12:40:59 AM
4 votes:

Bontesla: The author is an idiot.


The author is Erick Erickson. I didn't realize it needed to be actually said he was an idiot. I thought this was one of those universally known things by now.

Also, if this is the best they have as a defense against Romney definitively lying about Bain, then I'm shocked. The RNC usually manages something better than this.
2012-07-15 01:17:07 PM
3 votes:

Brubold: Think for yourself.


I've learned, over my 32 years on this Earth, that when people admonish you to "think for yourself", what they mean is "think exactly like I do."
2012-07-15 09:05:46 AM
3 votes:

MithrandirBooga: They will not stop until either the party completely fractures, or the country fractures. I just hope the party will crumble first.



That being said, I don't think I'd mind the country fracturing at this point. Hell, if just Texas alone secedes, things in this country would get so much better on the federal level. Imagine if the entire south packs up and goes. Well, bye. Have fun in your race to the bottom, us northernfolk will build a great society. With bullet trains, motherfarkers. And no, they won't come visit your retarded asses once you realise how awesome they are. If you even do.
2012-07-15 06:15:58 AM
3 votes:

Pincy: TheAlternator: Here's the amusing thing.

Liberals on Fark complain about how the Republican party is evil, hateful, spews lies, wouldn't know the truth if it punched them in the face, etc. Yet here, they have an example where some of Obama's reelection folks floated a false rumor, and then they must blindly rush to the defense of Team Democrat without regard to actual fact.

It's the exact same thing that many conservatives do, rushing blindly to support Team Republican even when obvious fact says they're wrong. To anyone without a team affiliation (I voted C'thulhu in '08, because why not?) it's hilarious in a sad, sad sort of way.

/ http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is -all-wet/
// In before the Fark Liberal Apology Brigade blasts me as a Republican shill

OK, we get it. Just because you are listed as CEO of a company on an SEC form doesn't mean you are actually CEO of that company. Or if you are actually CEO of that company it doesn't mean that you actually did anything as CEO of that company. Or if you did do things as CEO of that company you only did the good things, not the bad things like outsourcing jobs and raping pension funds.


Had this discussion with another--and infinitely more rational--Farker just yesterday.

A CEO or a sole shareholder is responsible under agency theory. If the CEO or sole shareholder (i.e. "owner") has given his underlings the authority to act on his behalf, and he benefits by their actions, and he has the ability to control their actions, then he is both legally and morally responsible for their action. And if he knew of their actions and disapproved but said nothing and merely reaped the benefit of their wrongful actions, he is still legally responsible under the theory of ratification, otherwise known as "silence gives assent."

So EVEN IF the Bain crew was running around screwing companies for profit--which is hardly a question under debate, they did--and Romney "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" as lawyers put it, then he is not innocent of their actions. Regardless of whether he was "acting" CEO or an "absent" CEO, even if he was spending all his time out in Salt Lake City playing with the Olympians, he is still the principal and they are his agents and he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN or else resigned entirely as CEO and divested his holdings or put them in a blind trust. Since he did not, he is just as liable as anyone who attempts to absolve himself of guilt by calling for a bowl of water and a clean towel.

"I find no fault in this man, see to it yourselves!" does not relieve one of liability.
2012-07-15 05:28:15 AM
3 votes:

MyRandomName: Anenu: Let me get this straight question whether or not Romney was involved in company in a time when they did several unAmerican things at a time when he was listed as the CEO is the same as questing Obama's birth location or questioning his religion?

Seriously you farktards, he was the owner. Yes, he was involved. No he was not making primary decisions. Are you all that farking stupid as to how a leave of absence works? God damn you people are stupid.


So, you're admitting he had little or nothing to do with the operations at Bain, and thus, his "private sector job creation" rhetoric is really him taking credit for other peoples' work?
2012-07-15 05:11:43 AM
3 votes:

wspguy: This place couldn't be more of a left-wing circle jerk if it tried


Go to Freerepublic if facts bother you so much.

/honestly beginning to believe that when a repub whines about "libs" or "lefties", they're whining about objective reality
2012-07-15 03:06:50 AM
3 votes:

TheAlternator: Here's the amusing thing.


/ http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is -all-wet/
// In before the Fark Liberal Apology Brigade blasts me as a Republican shill


And this is why it's a good idea to read the thread before you comment on it.

/The fallacies in the article you linked have already been pointed out in great detail in this very thread. Go back and scroll until you hit Dr. Mojo's wall o' text.
2012-07-15 02:01:12 AM
3 votes:
LOL, it gets even better with regards to FactCheck. Check this out:

On July 2nd, FactCheck.org says that if the Obama Campaign was telling the truth, Mitt Romney must have committed a felony:

i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com

On July 12th, Jennifer Epstein wrote an article from an interview with the Obama Campaign that says, (paraphrasing for effect here), "well, the SEC filings listed Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital as late as 2001, so I guess he must have committed a felony, then" (repeating FactCheck.org's own claim from ten days earlier.)

i.imgur.com

On July 12th, FactCheck.org publishes a follow-up, where they then attribute their own claim from July 2nd to the "Obama Campaign" without mentioning that the Obama Campaign was merely repeating FactCheck's claim.

i.imgur.com

farking unbelievable. When did FactCheck.org become so... retarded? No wonder the Redstate farkwit loves them, they're lying through their teeth!
2012-07-15 01:29:56 AM
3 votes:

Weaver95: Bungles: I saw a good 10 minutes of Fox News today, waiting for a takeaway.

Their line is "Idiots who dislike Romney are jealous of personal financial success".

That's their entire line.

yup. that and 'Obama is a liar and should apologize'. I find the GOP response to bain capital ads to be...puzzling. well, and amusing as well but mostly puzzling.


It's not puzzling. We've seen this building up for awhile now. Romney is now effectively running for President in an alternative reality, alongside our own, where everything is made up and the facts don't matter.

Abstinence only sex education - it works.
Evolution - doesn't exist. Same for climate change.
Saddam did have the WMDs we were looking for.
Obama's place of birth is Kenya.
Gingrich is a morally upstanding person, Romney's a relatable everyman, and Sarah Palin is smarter than Stephen Hawking.
2012-07-15 01:25:32 AM
3 votes:

GhostFish: That's absurd beyond belief.


so are the comments under this article.

marvel at the contortions in this singular example:

Look, I'm no Romney fan. I didn't support him in the primary this year, nor 4 years ago. I think he's a slimy politician and I don't trust him.

But then I realized:

My biggest problem with Barack Obama is not that I disagree with him on policy issues. It's a democracy - you win some, you lose some. My problem with Obama is that he is completely unqualified for the job of President, and does not appear to have engaged in any particular degree of on-the-job training over the past four years. He is totally incompetent, and time and time again demonstrates that he lacks the basic institutional knowledge and executive experience to successfully fulfill the role.

I am not a Romney fan. It is unlikely that I will make phone calls or knock on doors on his behalf. But I will vote for him, because I believe that he has the skills and background necessary to sucessfully execute the Office of President of the United States. Regardless of our policy differences and the fact that I think he's slimy, this is clearly a step up from the current situation.

This is a democracy. Everybody votes, and the winner governs. Each of us doesn't "deserve" to have our guy win, and nor do we "deserve" to have our policy preferences enacted at every turn.

What we do all deserve is a President with the skills, knowledge, and experience to execute the office faithfully. Obama clearly does not. I believe that Romney does.

Therefore, I vote for Mitt Romney.


the slimeball i don't trust for shiat is the guy i trust to execute the office faithfully. the guy who's been president for 4 years lacks the experience for the office. my brain is a hair, your argument is toaster strudel.
2012-07-15 01:21:46 AM
3 votes:

jcb274: I don't understand why Romney hasn't been plastered with the flip-flopper moniker to the degree Kerry was yet.

Rinse, repeat (from the wikis):

"Romney campaigned as a pro-choice candidate who would protect a woman's right to an abortion, and he rejected the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a pro-life organization.



There's just so f*cking much to attack about Romney. You can go for the free-throw of "flip-flopper" or you can shoot 3-pointers all day long when you show who he really is... the boss/CEO we've all worked for. The one that f*cked our happy, profitable company into a heap of ashes, just so he could he add an extra zero to his year's salary. Seriously, we've all seen it, and we all despise it. All Obama has to do is show people that Romney is THAT guy.
2012-07-15 01:16:49 AM
3 votes:
I have to admit that I am loving every second of watching the Romney campaign and GOP surrogates utterly fail to handle this Bain crisis.

farm9.staticflickr.com

And while they try to deal with this the Obama campaign still has the tax return issue and the off-shore accounts to smack him around with endlessly until November.

It's all down-hill for Romney and the GOP in 2012. Every awkward syllable out of Romney's mouth reinforces the image that he is everything that is wrong with America. Watch as with each passing week the swing-states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Iowa turn solidly blue on http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Even if Romeny can stop the bleeding tomorrow, and he won't, come election day he'll have to win Forida, Virginia, Ohio and either Iowa or Colorado to eek out win with 270+ electoral votes.

Unless Obama goes into a Mosque and gives a reading from the Koran between now and November, no way does Romney mge to pull all that off.
2012-07-15 12:56:38 AM
3 votes:
The difference being that Bain'ers have a point.
2012-07-15 12:53:21 AM
3 votes:

Weaver95: Bontesla: I really thought I'd enjoy this scandal more but talking with Republicans brings out the violence within me.

i'm absolutely fascinated watching the GOP flub this whole debate over bain capital.


I'm continually impressed by their commitment. But when I listen to one for more than 30 seconds, I begin to understand Lewis Black.
2012-07-15 12:52:34 AM
3 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: the GOP is pretty upset about Bain Capital. very interesting indeed.

Because they're terrified of it. Romney represents all that is bad with America. A grifter that goes from town to town and lays waste to it.

Here's the thing... everyone has known a "Romney", and a lot of us have worked for one. A lot of people know what I'm talking about... they've worked at a company for 10 or 20 years and have been treated equitably and usually like family by the owners. Then, one day Romney comes to town and buys the company. The first thing that happens is vacation time is cut, 401k/pension is slashed, health insurance costs go up, raises are frozen, costs are cut. Then the new management comes in and starts telling you how to do your job, their way. Before you know it, you're no longer a family... you're just a piece of a equipment that exists to generate profit for them.

And one day, all the people that worked together as family get to watch the liquidation company pack up the office and equipment.

Months later you lose your life savings, then you lose your car, then your house, then your pension. Years later, you turn on the TV and see the guy that made all that happen and he wants to be president of the United States, and spends his days saying he'll run the country like he ran your company.


THAT is why the Republicans are scared. They can't escape it. Hell, with McCain, his money came from beer and Kerry's came from Ketchup, and Romney's comes from harvesting the nest-eggs and blood of the middle class to he can sell it to China and fatten his bank account in the Caymans.


oh I know. i'm just amazed that someone on Team Romney didn't see this issue coming a mile off. I mean - its the obvious ploy, right? Obama lobs a softball at Romney to get a sneak peak at how he's going to handle the obvious stuff and then BAM! Romney trips over the easy pitch, falls flat on his face and breaks his nose.

i'm amazed at this.
2012-07-15 12:45:44 AM
3 votes:

GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.


look at it this way, it's another chance to watch our local GOP shills go absolutely bonkers over bain capital.
2012-07-15 12:44:32 AM
3 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: The fact that they're trying to paint SEC documents as some sort of crazy conspiracy is hilarious.


All I know is that Limbaugh hits the roof over the subject of Bain Capital.
2012-07-15 12:43:15 AM
3 votes:
Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.
2012-07-16 12:44:40 AM
2 votes:

MeinRS6: Why did no one care about Kerry's money?

Was it because he was a lib or because he didn't earn any of it himself?

I'm going with "Because he was a lib", but he is a little biatch too.


Because Kerry didn't earn it by gutting American companies and sending jobs out of America.
2012-07-15 08:13:42 PM
2 votes:

Bontesla: HeartBurnKid: Bontesla: Now, since you think it's utterly ridiculous then perhaps you would like to submit your sources?

undecided
[uhn-di-sahy-did] Example Sentences Origin
un·de·cid·ed
[uhn-di-sahy-did] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not decided or determined.
2.
not having one's mind firmly made up.

There's the source. You can read all you want into all the undecideds already having decided against Obama (and very, extraordinarily firmly against Obama at that) if you wish, but all undecided means is that they haven't decided one way or the other. If I were to speculate, as you and the 5 people you linked to are wont to do, I could actually say that the votes that converted from Democratic to undecided, as mentioned in your second or third link, are probably going to end up back with Obama. You're talking about people who are already predisposed to vote Democratic; Romney would have to have some kind of outreach towards them and move towards the middle, two things he is increasingly unlikely to do as time goes on. For them, the choice is between Obama and not voting, not between Romney and not voting. And there is some portion of the electorate who genuinely haven't decided between Obama and Romney (or, as my brother and all the other South Park fans would say, "the giant douche and the turd sandwich".)

Unlike you, however, I recognize my idle speculation as exactly that, and I'm not going to go hunting for other people's speculation to make me feel better about my own. We'll see how all this shakes out as we get closer to November, and all your insults and all of your walls of text until then are worth precisely dick.

Your source is the dictionary? Right, because when I think of astute political analysis, I think of "the dictionary."


When most people do honest and astute political analysis, they usually start with "sticking with what words actually mean".

Once you leave that, you're dealing in spin and BS.

You've thoroughly shiatted all over this thread by demanding satisfaction for an infinitesimal perceived slight over semantics. Congratulations.
2012-07-15 05:58:38 PM
2 votes:

Bontesla: I'm arguing that it won't because "undecided" voters are more likely to simply not vote than to vote for Obama.


Based on what study and/or criteria? Because Nate Silver over at 538 seems to prove you entirely, completely, and totally wrong.
2012-07-15 04:13:14 PM
2 votes:

Zerochance: Romney has always had a number of undeniable advantages on his side. First off, Obama is a vulnerable President in this election, and he will continue to be as long as the economy and job market continue to suck. Romney also has some insanely deep pocketed people that are very vested in getting him elected, and the kind of money he has at his disposal can affect the outcome of an election, through sheer outspending blunt force if anything.

He also has the support of the Republican base. The Fark Independents, Teabaggers and hell, even the Paultards are all falling in line and backing Romney as we all knew they would. The kind of pedantry Republicans are putting on display in defense of Romney's SEC dealings just reeks of Paultardism. It's the same sort of overtly verbose obfuscation Paultards like to employ when discussing RON PAUL.

And yet, Romney just can't quit farking up, and his campaign keeps tripping on their own goddamn shoes. I believe Romney has always had a somewhat decent chance at beating Obama, particularly with the kind of money he has at his disposal, and yet, as a candidate, he just sucks donkey balls. He keeps shooting himself in the foot and giving traction to every single negative thing about him, and he seems completely incapable of defining himself in any way. Every single attempt he's made to rectify his gray areas just makes it worse, and it's all completely rooted in a pathological lack of honesty.

He just takes the dishonest route on every turn, and it's costing him his advantages. Instead of treating his wealth as a non-issue (which by itself it is) he tries to re-define himself as a "man of the people" and coming across as a bigger effete douche. Instead of standing by his moderate past, he embraces the right wing and looking even more unprincipled. Hell, a smart enough man could spin Bain's shady business practices as a painful but necessary part of the free market but Romney refuses to clarify his role and making the situa ...


It's contempt, pure and simple. Romney thought that since the president is black that he could walk right in and take over. He has prepared for nothing, and showed that not only has he worked for nothing, he can't do anything either. He was going to sit around, read a few cue cards, and let Fox News do the heavy lifting. Instead, the Obama Campaign has just murdered him on every single level. The Republicans thought pissing off their base was going to help if they could get a 'moderate' like Romney in place. The sad truth is that the Republicans are so divorced from reality that they really can't do anything. It's a party of retards from the poor Southerners who blame everything on everybody else to the inherited rich who walk into cherry jobs and don't do anything besides know the right people ('their' people, as it were).

The Republicans are so far up their own ass at this point it's downright amusing to see just how incapable they are of doing anything besides failing.
2012-07-15 03:45:53 PM
2 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: Could have stopped it but let it happen for any reason is the same as let it happen.


And to be clear, he personally profited from letting it happen. It's not like the reason he let it happen is a big mystery.
2012-07-15 02:40:15 PM
2 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: Mrbogey: He was doing his legal obligation as far as being on the board.

And the CEO, and the president, and the sole shareholder, and the sole director, and the controlling person. Minimize, minimize, minimize; maybe those lines will vanish from the SEC filings.

Is he a slave? Does he have a legal obligation to stay with a company from which he wants to sever ties? Is he a slave to himself as the sole shareholder, owning himself, and telling himself he can't leave? If he's "legally obligated", the only way that can make sense is if he's legally in control. And he was. Here's how it works out:

- Obama campaign claims Romney outsourced jobs.
- Romney responds that he wasn't with Bain when that happened.
- SEC filings show that he was president, CEO, sole director, and controlling person when that happened.
- Therefore, Romney was in a position to stop what he claimed he couldn't stop, and did not.
- Therefore, the Obama campaign told the truth, and Romney lied.

The only way Romney could have been telling the truth is if he wasn't the sole director, the CEO, the president, and the controlling person. If he'd come back to the company and said, "listen bud, you need to stop outsourcing" and the new management said "sorry guy, you don't work here anymore, you have no say."

Romney could have come in at any time and exercised his legal authority as president, CEO, and director to say "NO!" to the outsourcing that occurred from 1999-2002, and the company could have done fark-all to to overrule him. Period. Could have stopped it but let it happen for any reason is the same as let it happen.


CEOs are powerless to stop the relentless tide. They are just pawns to the system. That's why they don't get paid much, because they just act on the whims of the Board. Truly, they are to be pitied, which is why they are paid at all. To weep and sob as others make the decisions. Romney wept the entire time he was there, and truly, that's why we need tax breaks, to stem their sorrow...
2012-07-15 02:36:53 PM
2 votes:

Mrbogey: He was doing his legal obligation as far as being on the board.


And the CEO, and the president, and the sole shareholder, and the sole director, and the controlling person. Minimize, minimize, minimize; maybe those lines will vanish from the SEC filings.

Is he a slave? Does he have a legal obligation to stay with a company from which he wants to sever ties? Is he a slave to himself as the sole shareholder, owning himself, and telling himself he can't leave? If he's "legally obligated", the only way that can make sense is if he's legally in control. And he was. Here's how it works out:

- Obama campaign claims Romney outsourced jobs.
- Romney responds that he wasn't with Bain when that happened.
- SEC filings show that he was president, CEO, sole director, and controlling person when that happened.
- Therefore, Romney was in a position to stop what he claimed he couldn't stop, and did not.
- Therefore, the Obama campaign told the truth, and Romney lied.

The only way Romney could have been telling the truth is if he wasn't the sole director, the CEO, the president, and the controlling person. If he'd come back to the company and said, "listen bud, you need to stop outsourcing" and the new management said "sorry guy, you don't work here anymore, you have no say."

Romney could have come in at any time and exercised his legal authority as president, CEO, and director to say "NO!" to the outsourcing that occurred from 1999-2002, and the company could have done fark-all to to overrule him. Period. Could have stopped it but let it happen for any reason is the same as let it happen.
2012-07-15 12:55:27 PM
2 votes:
Interesting that none of the Usual Suspects from my Ignore list has posted in this thread. Even they don't want to defend this nonsense.
2012-07-15 12:44:02 PM
2 votes:

Brubold: Think for yourself.


And by this, of course, you mean "don't participate". That'll show 'em.
2012-07-15 11:27:51 AM
2 votes:
A school teacher working only 9 months out of the year for $35-45K BAD. A CEO not working or responsible for a company that he is the sole shareholder taking home 100K+ GOOD. That is the narrative they are going with?

I really don't care if he broke a law or not with the SEC filings, I am more concerned as to how dumb he must think the American people are to believe that the sole shareholder of a company bears no responsibility for what was done by that company and therefore in his name. Where does the buck stop? If he was not running the company or did not have ultimate say in what was happening who did?
2012-07-15 11:21:36 AM
2 votes:

Weaver95: i'm just amazed that someone on Team Romney didn't see this issue coming a mile off.


The people that Team Romney hang out with are all the same: they don't think there's anything wrong with being a vulture capitalist and they never anticipated that the 'little people' would ever object to their candidate's back story. They are truly dumbfounded that the rabble is objecting to Romney's history.
2012-07-15 10:59:07 AM
2 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: OgreMagi: Romney took a leave of absence fro Bain in 2009 to run the winter olympics. After that, he decided he was going to run for governor and chose to make his leave of absence permanent. This is all documented and there was nothing illegal about it.

No, of course not. The crux of the matter is he lied, on record. The "...or otherwise made fraudulent SEC filings" aspect of it is just to force him into the far less damaging "lied to the voters" aspect. He did one or the other, either he was in control of Bain, and therefore responsible for it (whether he decides that taking his hands off the steering wheel means he isn't still in the driver's seat or not), or he wasn't. It's a simple either-or proposition. Either the SEC filings are true, and he was the controlling person and the people were lied to, or the SEC filings were not true, and the SEC was lied to.

It's one or the other.

There's this queer fascination on "your" side of the argument with attempting to point out, as I mentioned above, this notion that because he may have chosen to fully or partially delegate all his tasks and responsibilities as the "controlling person," they weren't somehow still his. Maybe everything is clear sailing, maybe it's not. That's not really the point. The point is, at the end of the day, if the buck had to stop with anybody, it was going to stop with him.


Also --- if he IS completely innocent, that requires there BE an interim CEO in place at Bain for 2-3 years. Why can't they at least identify who that was? If Romney was doing
NOTHING at Bain (as they claim) then someone else had to be doing that job OR in the years 1999 and before, he must ALSO not have been doing ANYTHING which completely deflates any claim he has to be this "wonderful businessman" that should be elected to run the country.

ALSO - this whole issue only centers around 1999-2002. What about 2003-2010 --- what's in THOSE tax returns that requires such secrecy? He was (at least in name) governor of MA during several of those years - what could POSSIBLY be so hush-hush during those years that his tax returns can't be examined?

When he ran for governor, there was concern about whether or not he was actually a resident of MA (you had to be resident for 7 years to run for governor). It is entirely possible that whatever is in his tax records would show that he tried to game the system so as to be a "resident" of both UT and MA at the same time (or at least claiming to UT that he was a citizen while also claiming to MA that he was a citizen in order to run for governor). I suspect that were these documents "outed" that we'd find it very possible that his run for governor was in fact done in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth.

THAT would be far more damaging to his presidential aspirations than even the Bain controversy.

(Not to mention that while governor of MA he spent more time AWAY from the state working on his failed 2008 run for the presidency than he did actually working on issues within his own (if it really was his own) state. That in of itself explains why MA fell to a ranking of 47th in job creation while a self-labeled "job creator" was at the helm. I should also point out that in his per-campaigning campaigning he routinely maligned his "home state" of MA while touting the virtues of his "home state" of UT.)

None of these things are qualities I'd want in a president - regardless of party affiliation.
2012-07-15 10:09:49 AM
2 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: Mrtraveler01: He's not. But I don't see who is though.

RON PAUL.


This is true. This is a man who I honestly think confuses the Articles of Confederation for the US Constitution.
2012-07-15 09:45:37 AM
2 votes:

Brubold: Well you can include the other major fact checking site Politifact as well. They call this lie "half true" but in their write up they agree with Factcheck and the other sources as far as Romney basically leaving Bain in 1999.


Personally, assuming strong evidence comes out that he was really absent, I can accept that.

But we do need that evidence, since we're starting from a place where Romney is officially and legally "CEO" and "Owner." Those titles by default suggest active control and management of the company, so IF he wants to claim that he wasn't exercising control, the burden of proof is on him.

Then we need to verify that it is acceptable practice to file as CEO and Owner without having any involvement in the company. Once that's clear, then it's safe to say Romney didn't break any rules.

But even if he didn't break any rules, he's still open to criticism, based on questions such as:

- Why DID you remain CEO and Owner even though your hands were completely off? Why not step down, even if the intent is only temporarily, and let whoever the practical CEO was be the official CEO?
- (As someone pointed out upthread), if you are officially CEO and Owner, even though you were absent, shouldn't you still implicitly bear responsibility for whatever happened that time? If not, why didn't you step down/divest?
- What planet do you come from where you can be completely gone and do nothing yet retain the title of CEO and draw a six-figure salary?
2012-07-15 09:32:51 AM
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: b0rg9: "President is a divider, not a uniter..."

Oh give me a break. This is coming from the same network that treats Obama like he's the enemy of the state.


Its a self-fulfilling prophecy for them. They claim that Obama will devide the country and then they do everything in their power to make sure they NEVER agree with him on ANYTHING and are constantly at odds. Then they can technically admit that yes, Obama did not unite the country. What they will leave out is the fact that its their fault.

Its like saying that someone will be late for an important meeting and be unreliable, then you take out the air in their tires so and then complain that they are late.
2012-07-15 09:27:09 AM
2 votes:
"The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsover. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics."

~Barney Frank
2012-07-15 09:25:38 AM
2 votes:
Listening to the Bain guy on MSNBC trying to explain this situation. I think it really illustrates Mitt's issue on this. This was perfectly normal within their little bubble of the super-rich, but it sounds completely foreign and inconceivable to the 99.99% who don't exist in their special world. Statements like "stop focusing on the $100,000 salary he was paid during the 3-year transition period, that's not important. He made much more off his investments" are perfectly true, but show just how out of touch those people are.
2012-07-15 07:59:31 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: What more interesting is that liberals are desperately trying to get mileage out of this silly sideshow. You'd think if they were really confident in their candidate they'd want to focus on the issues. Maybe they see stagnant economy and think Obama's chances in november are weakening, hence this hail Mary. Very interesting indeed.


If you don't see how this is directly related to the economy, then you're either a troll or dumber than a box of rocks.

Rocks with foetal alcohol syndrome.
2012-07-15 07:57:02 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: What more interesting is that liberals are desperately trying to get mileage out of this silly sideshow. You'd think if they were really confident in their candidate they'd want to focus on the issues.


So after years of "Arugula Lettuce! Teleprompter! Birth Certificate! Fancy Mustard! Moo-chelle hugged the Queen! Put his feet on his desk!" suddenly our friends on the Right want to focus on the issues??
2012-07-15 05:25:54 AM
2 votes:

MyRandomName: Yes, he was involved.


Then he lied, because the paper said he was, and I quote "Not involved in any way"
2012-07-15 05:25:14 AM
2 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: OgreMagi: Romney took a leave of absence fro Bain in 2009 to run the winter olympics. After that, he decided he was going to run for governor and chose to make his leave of absence permanent. This is all documented and there was nothing illegal about it.

No, of course not. The crux of the matter is he lied, on record. The "...or otherwise made fraudulent SEC filings" aspect of it is just to force him into the far less damaging "lied to the voters" aspect. He did one or the other, either he was in control of Bain, and therefore responsible for it (whether he decides that taking his hands off the steering wheel means he isn't still in the driver's seat or not), or he wasn't. It's a simple either-or proposition. Either the SEC filings are true, and he was the controlling person and the people were lied to, or the SEC filings were not true, and the SEC was lied to.

It's one or the other.

There's this queer fascination on "your" side of the argument with attempting to point out, as I mentioned above, this notion that because he may have chosen to fully or partially delegate all his tasks and responsibilities as the "controlling person," they weren't somehow still his. Maybe everything is clear sailing, maybe it's not. That's not really the point. The point is, at the end of the day, if the buck had to stop with anybody, it was going to stop with him.


Yet when he tried to establish his residency in Mass. for the governership:

When Mitt Romney was running for Massachusetts governor in 2002, it was in his interest to make his exit date from Bain Capital a little fuzzy. Democrats had challenged his residency, and he told the state ballot law commission that he returned to Massachusetts during his Salt Lake years to attend "were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," Politico's Alexander Burns reports. Romney did not mention he worked for Bain, but for companies Bain invested in, like Staples, Marriott, and the Life Like Corporation. Link

I don't work for Walmart, sure I own the entire company, but I do work for Sam's Club.

I still wish I could land a job like him him where you get $100,000 with no responsibilities, no obligation to show up, no pressure... I might even work 3-4 of those jobs. Willard, do you know anyone who is hiring with those benefits? (of course he also chides Blah... people for wanting free stuff, so priceless.)
2012-07-15 03:45:28 AM
2 votes:

dookdookdook: IlGreven: These do not absolve responsibility, and acting like they do is anathema to a free and civil society.

Fine, but if - hypothetically, because I have no effing clue - this really is the kind of arrangement that happens all the time and all the lawyers and regulators and shareholders are pretty much fine with it, it's not really fair to suddenly get outraged about it just because the guy doing it is your political opponent. That's just so.....Fox.


You know Mitt Romney was Bain's only shareholder right?

He was president, CEO and the lone shareholder. That's the point of all of this- there really is no way that the ultimate decision making of the company didn't rest with him even if he wasn't managing it day to day and didn't have much involvement with those decisions.

Even if he had hired someone else to work for him as acting CEO... ultimately that person STILL worked for him and it was still his company when it was participating in some really ugly business practices.

That's laid out as fact in the SEC documents. That's what this whole thing is about.
2012-07-15 03:31:56 AM
2 votes:
i49.tinypic.com
2012-07-15 03:13:08 AM
2 votes:

OgreMagi: Romney took a leave of absence fro Bain in 2009 to run the winter olympics. After that, he decided he was going to run for governor and chose to make his leave of absence permanent. This is all documented and there was nothing illegal about it.


No, of course not. The crux of the matter is he lied, on record. The "...or otherwise made fraudulent SEC filings" aspect of it is just to force him into the far less damaging "lied to the voters" aspect. He did one or the other, either he was in control of Bain, and therefore responsible for it (whether he decides that taking his hands off the steering wheel means he isn't still in the driver's seat or not), or he wasn't. It's a simple either-or proposition. Either the SEC filings are true, and he was the controlling person and the people were lied to, or the SEC filings were not true, and the SEC was lied to.

It's one or the other.

There's this queer fascination on "your" side of the argument with attempting to point out, as I mentioned above, this notion that because he may have chosen to fully or partially delegate all his tasks and responsibilities as the "controlling person," they weren't somehow still his. Maybe everything is clear sailing, maybe it's not. That's not really the point. The point is, at the end of the day, if the buck had to stop with anybody, it was going to stop with him.
2012-07-15 02:48:05 AM
2 votes:

Corvus: But I still can't wrap my head around the "Obama said that Romney was working for Bain, the documents say Romney WAS working for Bain, therefor Obama is wrong when he says he left the company!" Huh?!?!


Man, it's the same people that said, "If Romney was on the SEC filings as working for Bain, then he committed a felony. [TEN DAYS LATER]. When the Obama Campaign cited us, which we will not mention that this was our argument, not theirs, they were lying."

It's pretty well starting to emerge as a pattern of behaviour.

My first guess was that PolitiFact had one editor manage to do both stories, and when I checked I found exactly that:

Posted by Brooks Jackson on Monday, July 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, President Obama.

Posted by Brooks Jackson on Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 6:27 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, President Obama.


Brooks Jackson is the director of FactCheck. Perhaps he knows what being the "sole director" entails, by virtue of his position, which he will later call "irrelevant", leaving out just this and that little piece of information (their update actually calls direct quotes from the SEC filings submitted to them "irrelevant" as mentioned, after claiming they were highly relevant and may, in fact, be a felony -- again, without needing to check the facts, only the logic here, it's patterns of behaviour).

I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of these types of editors (conservative or liberal) does work like this that slips past the radar from time to time at any fact-checking site. I'm sure they sincerely believe they're vested in the truth, as I'm sureJackson sincerely believed when he wrote a follow-up piece that directly called into question his ability to either a) actually fact check or b) not lie. I think it's less that Jackson is being hyperpartisan and more that Brooks Jackson doesn't like (or isn't used to) being second-guessed.
2012-07-15 02:31:13 AM
2 votes:

dookdookdook: I'm receptive to a "that's just how things are done" argument,


...and that is why we're going to hell in a handbasket. We swallow lame justifications way too easily.

"That's just how things are done."
"We were just following orders."
"They knew what they were doing when they signed away their life."

These do not absolve responsibility, and acting like they do is anathema to a free and civil society.
2012-07-15 02:12:18 AM
2 votes:
So the author admits that the birth certificate controversy was retarded? Yay for progress!
2012-07-15 01:47:12 AM
2 votes:

Fuzzmosis: Is it a free market American Republican thing that "Well, he's rich, insane, possibly sociopathic but since he's got money let him run?"


FTFY

Basically Republicans have this belief that capitalism works like the afterlife. If you are a good person you become rich. If you are a bad person you become poor. So they see someone like Romney and go "He is rich, has to be smart and a good worker" because that is their dogma about capitalism. (well unless they are Warren Buffet then they can just ignore that belief like they do).
2012-07-15 01:45:06 AM
2 votes:

Fuzzmosis: Why, instead of celebrating that "Yay, my side is going to win this election!" are you not demanding public servants and political officers who are not storybook evil? From the democratic side as well as the republican? Even if you disagree with the long or short term political goals, do you not want a dutiful, skilled leader?


Because one is clearly on the side of the people and one is on the side of Financial Ted Bundyism. One of them wants to build America into something better, and the other wants to capture its prey, rape it, then kill it and bury it in the woods where no one will ever find it.

And somehow your idea is that we should treat them both equally and be equally cynical of both of them. It doesn't work that way... the same way your average cop isn't going to question the Huxtables on their way to grocery store with the same veracity as the guy in the VW Bug with his pants down, blood and dirt on his hands while handcuffs, duct tape and a shovel are on the front seat.
2012-07-15 01:42:42 AM
2 votes:
If you look at this in a vacuum several years down the road you see....

Birtherism.... a bunch of idiots trying to prove a racist theory that was dispelled many times through factual evidence.

Bainism... a bunch of people trying to prove a well-founded theory that a presidential candidate lied on SEC filings about control of his company as proof that he is a terribly fraudulent candidate.

... and then unless you sniff glue at a competitive level, you deduce that one is far more retarded than the other.
2012-07-15 01:31:47 AM
2 votes:

jcb274: Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: sure, Romney will take a hit...but its WAY early in the game. plenty of time to recover. letting this issue build up a momentum of its own is stupid.

Kerry never shook the flip-flop moniker, and Romney won't lose his smarmy salesman moniker, either.

I don't understand why Romney hasn't been plastered with the flip-flopper moniker to the degree Kerry was yet.

Rinse, repeat (from the wikis):

"Romney campaigned as a pro-choice candidate who would protect a woman's right to an abortion, and he rejected the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a pro-life organization.


He is flip-flopping with a too high frequency for the "detectors" (=news cycle time). He exceeds the available news bandwidth. New alorithms are in place (e.g the internets, Google etc.) that can track this flip-flopping, but the followers are not interested in facts... yet...
2012-07-15 01:26:38 AM
2 votes:

Genevieve Marie: I tend to agree. His campaign is always highly effective and organized, and I think he's smart enough to realize that voter apathy could be an issue this election, and going TOO negative will increase that. Planting some negative ideas about Romney, then shifting focus to positive things, and ramping it up a bit each time is a solid strategy.


From what I can tell, that's the strategy he's going with, and it's forcing Romney to go with the other strategy. Romney spends half his days defending Obama attacks, and then the others attacking Obama's positive message. Then he gets asked what his positions are and he has none.... and before that fire is out, a new wave of attacks comes in. Before THAT fire is out, a wave a positive messaging from Obama comes out... and on and on it goes.

When you've got as many skeletons in the closet as Romney does, there's no way to effectively fight-off these attacks and get a positive message out there at the same time.
2012-07-15 01:22:01 AM
2 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: except that i'm pretty sure the GOP voters won't care that Romney's an idiot. they'll vote for him no matter what. I guess it depends on what the independents think about these sort of stories.

Nobody is going to win any GOP voters. Romney is guaranteed 40% of the vote just by having an (R) next to his name... it's that 10.1% he needs that will be hard to get.


there's an outside chance that Romney could lose GOP votes tho. this bain capital thing is really nasty - Romney is/was a vulture capitalist, and that DID hit the middle class GOP voters pretty hard. Plus there's the whole mormon thing. evangelicals have issues voting for a mormon. got me as to what effect (if any) that all might have...but it could split off a few votes here and there.
2012-07-15 01:19:04 AM
2 votes:

Weaver95: except that i'm pretty sure the GOP voters won't care that Romney's an idiot. they'll vote for him no matter what. I guess it depends on what the independents think about these sort of stories.


Nobody is going to win any GOP voters. Romney is guaranteed 40% of the vote just by having an (R) next to his name... it's that 10.1% he needs that will be hard to get.
2012-07-15 01:18:55 AM
2 votes:

YouWinAgainGravity: Get back to me when the Bainers are arguing about a conspiracy that can only be explained by time-travel.


OK, OK. I think I got this one. Right uh.. The whole issue surrounds SEC documents that say that he was in charge of Bain during some period of time in the early 2000s, right? But at the same time, Romney is saying that he had left the company by then. So let's say that BOTH are true. How does that work? Temporal superposition. At some point in the future, Romney gets his hands on a time machine - possibly Obama's - and for whatever reason, he goes back in time to the year 1999 and takes over Bain from his past self. So at that point, 1999 Romney is no longer part of the company, and what 2012 Romney is saying is true. He DID leave Bain at that point. HOWEVER - future Romney was at the helm at that point, which is why his name shows up on the SEC documents. As to why nobody questioned why he looked different when he showed up to work after quitting? He's a Robot, remember? HE DIDN'T LOOK DIFFERENT.

/Unless... They built another Romneybot to control Bain while this one did the Governor thing!
2012-07-15 01:02:06 AM
2 votes:

wademh: It's sort of true.
In reality, the people who are making the biggest deal out of Bain are those that would never have voted for RMoney regardless. And likewise, birthers don't really care about Obama's birthplace, they just think they have a gotcha issue.


No, polls are showing independents do care about this.
2012-07-15 12:58:12 AM
2 votes:
What I love is how Romney's business experience was supposed to be the big thing he could bring to the Oval Office, and now he and his supporters are running away from it as if it were on fire.

It really is just like the Swift Boat thing, except (to paraphrase the Bizarro Breitbart Zombie Universe headline a while back) the Bain allegations are based on reality and the Swift Boat attacks were lies from start to finish.

Once all this settles down, the next step is to demand Romney explain what he did do at Bain that was so worthwhile, and watch him spin so hard the IAEA has him confiscated as a nuclear materials centrifuge.
2012-07-15 12:54:36 AM
2 votes:
AFAIK the birthers never had a shred of actual evidence beyond a crapload of photoshopped Kenyan birth certificates and a publicist-written author's bio on the jacket of a 20 year old book.

The "Bainers" have piles of genuine financial documents.

I'm receptive to a "that's just how things are done" argument, but it looks fairly bad for Mittens so far.
2012-07-15 12:37:14 AM
2 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-07-16 12:00:34 PM
1 votes:

MeinRS6: Consider that you wouldn't have to be this desperate if Obama didn't suck so much ass as president. You could be talking about how great the economy was because of Obama and shiat like that, but you can't, because Obama sucks huge donkey cock.


First off, we don't need to hear about the Obama/donkey slashfic you're writing. Just post it to LJ like everyone else.

Second, while I know that deep in your heart you know that the economy has done nothing but suffer since 12:01AM on January 20, 2009, reality just doesn't support that.

Dow Jones Close in February, 2009: 7,937
Dow Jones Close on Friday, July 13, 2012: 12,777

US GDP Fiscal Year 2009: 13,939
US GDP Fiscal Year 2012: 15,601

Unemployment in February, 2009: 8.3%
Unemployment in June, 2012: 8.2%

US Federal Budget 2009: $3.1 trillion*
US Federal Budget 2012: $2.5 trillion†

*That's without the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars added in. When you add the cost of those (you know, how they should have been from the start) it kicks up to around $4 trillion.
†That includes the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If you use GOP accounting and remove those, the 2012 budget almost drops under $2 trillion.

The economy is much better, government spending has gone down, and while unemployment has just barely gone down, it's still better than it was before Obama took office. To look at the actual facts and then claim that Obama has done such terrible things to our economy just shows how completely out of touch with reality you are. It's very sad, really. With such an active imagination as yours, you should be doing something creative and useful instead of coming into Fark politics threads and smearing your feces all over the place.
2012-07-16 03:51:29 AM
1 votes:

zetar: / I've been saying this for about 18 months: this is the end of the GOP. They are the new Know Nothings and are headed for the same extinction.


2.bp.blogspot.com

I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers, Irish harps. Do a job for a nickel what a n-r does for a dime and a white man used to get a quarter for. What have they done? Name one thing they've contributed.

//would be King of Teabaggers
2012-07-16 02:15:32 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: MeinRS6: LordJiro: MeinRS6: It's the economy, stupid.

Good luck with the Bain lies and all that.

Good luck with your candidate who personifies the greed that CAUSED the economic collapse. While having the charisma of stale white toast.

A couple of things -

1. I don't like Romney. However, one of the politicians he is better than is Obama.

2. Romney's greed caused the economic collapse?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what idiot libs actually believe. I love it. That's even better than the Bain nonsense.

So keep it up, parrot boy. You are farking hilarious.

1. How so? Seriously, name some positives about Romney.

2. Not Romney personally, no. Which is why I didn't say he did; I said he PERSONIFIED it; he is the embodiment of the loot-and-plunder, vulture capitalist mindset that has held America back since Reagan. And he sure as fark didn't HELP the economy when he was gutting businesses, outsourcing...excuse me, "offshoring" jobs, and sending his money everywhere but America.


Holy crap, you are desperate!

Consider that you wouldn't have to be this desperate if Obama didn't suck so much ass as president. You could be talking about how great the economy was because of Obama and shiat like that, but you can't, because Obama sucks huge donkey cock.
2012-07-16 02:12:03 AM
1 votes:

MeinRS6: LordJiro: MeinRS6: It's the economy, stupid.

Good luck with the Bain lies and all that.

Good luck with your candidate who personifies the greed that CAUSED the economic collapse. While having the charisma of stale white toast.

A couple of things -

1. I don't like Romney. However, one of the politicians he is better than is Obama.

2. Romney's greed caused the economic collapse?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what idiot libs actually believe. I love it. That's even better than the Bain nonsense.

So keep it up, parrot boy. You are farking hilarious.


1. How so? Seriously, name some positives about Romney.

2. Not Romney personally, no. Which is why I didn't say he did; I said he PERSONIFIED it; he is the embodiment of the loot-and-plunder, vulture capitalist mindset that has held America back since Reagan. And he sure as fark didn't HELP the economy when he was gutting businesses, outsourcing...excuse me, "offshoring" jobs, and sending his money everywhere but America.
2012-07-16 01:52:39 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: MeinRS6: It's the economy, stupid.

Good luck with the Bain lies and all that.

Good luck with your candidate who personifies the greed that CAUSED the economic collapse. While having the charisma of stale white toast.


A couple of things -

1. I don't like Romney. However, one of the politicians he is better than is Obama.

2. Romney's greed caused the economic collapse?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what idiot libs actually believe. I love it. That's even better than the Bain nonsense.

So keep it up, parrot boy. You are farking hilarious.
2012-07-16 12:45:31 AM
1 votes:

Brubold: Actually I'd favor repealing Obamacare if the Republicans had something better mind.


Why would they have something better in mind? It was their idea!
2012-07-16 12:27:54 AM
1 votes:
MeinRS6:
i44.tinypic.com
Why did no one care about Kerry's money?

i41.tinypic.com

Because he didn't run as a supposed Job Creator™ with Business Experience™.

He did run on his military background, and was Swiftboated to hell and back.
2012-07-15 08:36:11 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: Teufelaffe: Bontesla: All this in light of the fact that, in swing states, a little more than 400,000 registered Democrats left the party at about the same time that 400,000 people registered with Independents? No, you're totes right. They're definitely going to lean toward Obama, despite abandoning his party, because . . . what?

Because maybe they learned something from a second Bush Jr. term being the direct result of third-party voting? Sure, I may be dreaming, but maybe this time around people will learn from their mistakes instead of repeating them.

The healthcare debate leads me to believe people are willfully and happily ignorant. I'd like to have my faith in humanity restored every so slightly by undecided voters to overwhelming reject the fraud and perhaps we'll see that trend happening in future polls. I mean, this is a fairly huge scandal and Mitt Romney isn't known to rebound well.

I'm even almost optimistic in thinking that this election cycle is wildly different than the others and perhaps that will result in a different result.

But, I don't want to be blindsided because I chose to reject a political theory just because I can't fathom that level of stupidity. People can be surprisingly stupid.


The problem now is now matter how beneficial it might actually be to have a viable third party in this country, we're past the point where it's safe to try and give them some power. Maybe in the 70s or 80s it might have worked to really push a third party platform and shoot for enough of the vote to get a share of the financial pot (and their own primaries), but the GOP has gone so completely insane in the last 20 years that we cannot afford to put them back in power. Give 'em a couple of election cycles to destroy themselves, and then we can look at adding a third party, but until then, the Dems are the only thing keeping this country from devolving into a true plutocracy.

It's like we have these two guys. One says that if we elect him, he'll rape us with a broom handle and kick our dog. The other guy says that if we elect him, he'll beat our families to death with the broom handle, then rape their corpses with the dog before setting fire to our house and masturbating into the ashes. Waaaay in the background you've got a third guy who says he won't do any of that raping and killing stuff, but guy #3 has absolutely zero chance of actually being elected. It doesn't matter how much you hate the first two guys or how much you like the third guy, it's in your best interests to make damn sure that the second guy does not get elected.

Until the GOP puts forth a candidate that doesn't want to strip-mine the country's populace for fun and profit, we need to make sure they stay as far away from the reins of power as possible.
2012-07-15 07:06:51 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: Now, since you think it's utterly ridiculous then perhaps you would like to submit your sources?


undecided
[uhn-di-sahy-did] Example Sentences Origin
un·de·cid·ed
[uhn-di-sahy-did] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not decided or determined.
2.
not having one's mind firmly made up.

There's the source. You can read all you want into all the undecideds already having decided against Obama (and very, extraordinarily firmly against Obama at that) if you wish, but all undecided means is that they haven't decided one way or the other. If I were to speculate, as you and the 5 people you linked to are wont to do, I could actually say that the votes that converted from Democratic to undecided, as mentioned in your second or third link, are probably going to end up back with Obama. You're talking about people who are already predisposed to vote Democratic; Romney would have to have some kind of outreach towards them and move towards the middle, two things he is increasingly unlikely to do as time goes on. For them, the choice is between Obama and not voting, not between Romney and not voting. And there is some portion of the electorate who genuinely haven't decided between Obama and Romney (or, as my brother and all the other South Park fans would say, "the giant douche and the turd sandwich".)

Unlike you, however, I recognize my idle speculation as exactly that, and I'm not going to go hunting for other people's speculation to make me feel better about my own. We'll see how all this shakes out as we get closer to November, and all your insults and all of your walls of text until then are worth precisely dick.
2012-07-15 07:05:05 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: A recent Wash Times/JZ Analytics


Oh come on, Washington Times/Zogby? You've got to be kidding me.

"Here at the polling firm of Republican Crazy/Republican Propaganda, we find Mitt Romney holds a decisive lead over president Osama Hussein Osama. Did we mention that the president is black?"
2012-07-15 05:32:37 PM
1 votes:
Didn't Martha Stewart spend time in jail for lying to the SEC?

over less than 50K?
2012-07-15 05:06:21 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: I'm arguing that it won't because "undecided" voters are more likely to simply not vote than to vote for Obama.


Wow... that's a massively idiotic statement.
2012-07-15 05:01:55 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: Corvus: So you are saying increasing unfavorability rating for Romney will have zero correlation for people likely to vote for him?

Bontesla :.

Corvus :

....wall of text.....

I think Corvus bailed a while back. You might have missed that because you were building that text wall.
I really don't think anyone still here gives a shiat about your pissing contest.

Seriously.

2012-07-15 04:51:36 PM
1 votes:

Urbn: "I may have been prefect, but I am not responsible for the death of Jesus!"
-Pontius Pilate

Wow, Republicans finally agree with him...


I'm picturing this quote as a billboard down in Jesusland, with Romney dressed up like a Life of Brian Roman
2012-07-15 04:35:08 PM
1 votes:
Someone in another thread pointed out that Romney is the archetypal asshole boss that virtually everyone has had to work for at one point or another. That guy who makes every decision on the basis of Excel spreadsheets irrespective of the long term damage it does to an organization.

Somewhere in the Obama camp, staffers are aware of this and are taking advantage of it.
2012-07-15 04:18:41 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: THIS.


Here's the basic facts you'll never find rebutted in any of those "fact check" write ups:

1) Mitt Romney could have stopped Bain Capital from outsourcing at any time.
2) Mitt Romney personally profited from Bain Capital's outsourcing.

You might be more persuasive if instead of regurgitating pages and pages of corporate spin obviously designed to protect a favored son, you addressed the core of the issue, which is that Mitt Romney is responsible for Bain Capital's outsourcing.
2012-07-15 04:17:44 PM
1 votes:
img155.imageshack.us

I love how much whining the right wing nuts are doing. This coming from the party that swift-boated Kerry, tried to tie Reverend Wright actions to Obama, and kept up 4 years of birther derping. Yet somebody who was CEO, chairman, president and sole owner of a company aren't responsible for what his company did.
2012-07-15 04:15:55 PM
1 votes:
Ya, there are a lot of reasons why Romney would not make a good President, but I think the most damaging is that it's all but certain he's going to abandon us for Rio de Janeiro halfway through his first term.
2012-07-15 04:14:46 PM
1 votes:

Guntram Shatterhand: Pincy: Yep, the cover up is always more damaging than the crime. You'd think the Republicans would have learned this by now?

They're more in love with the idea of pushing everything onto other people: taxes, responsibility, problemsolving, et cetera.


When a conservative says "personal responsibility," what he usually means is "blame the victim." The workers Mittens laid off to hire cheaper overseas labor "need to take more personal responsibility for their lives." Mittens, by contrast, is totally blameless, even though he more than any other person on the planet could have stopped it from happening, and personally profited from it.

What a weird definition of "personal responsibility" conservatives live by.
2012-07-15 04:14:45 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: From the article:

The geniuses at Team Obama are showing their complete ignorance of private enterprise, the law, and the one well vetted part of Mitt Romney's career - his tenure at Bain Capital.

It is well established that Mitt Romney left Bain to go salvage the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. It is also well established that his name remained on some SEC documents. This stems from winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital. It is a quirk in the law. It has been well vetted. Even FactCheck.org and the Washington Post are unpersuaded by Team Obama's hyperbole.

Really? A felon? Hey! Let's accuse Barack Obama of being a foreign born Muslim! There's about the same validity to both. Meet the Bainers - they are the members of Team Obama demanding proof from Mitt Romney that he is a liar or a felon. Next they'll ask when he stopped beating his wife.

The Bainers will not take any answer that does not show Romney to be a liar or felon in the same way Birthers will take no answer other than one that shows Barack Obama is not an American citizen. In fact, pointing this out on twitter today I was barraged from both sides that Obama has still never shown his real birth certificate and Mitt Romney has still not shown his tax returns.

That, in fact, is what this is all about. It's just another attempt to get Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. Guy Benson has a pretty exhaustive look at this nonsense.

The Bainers will become as insufferable as the Birthers. The only difference is that the Bainers' insufferable stupidity is at the heart of the Obama campaign while the Romney campaign has worked hard to not be tied to Birthers.


THIS.


You know the article is making fun of people like you (birthers) right?
2012-07-15 04:08:43 PM
1 votes:

Zerochance: First off, Obama is a vulnerable President in this election, and he will continue to be as long as the economy and job market continue to suck.


I understand that the economy isn't as good as we want it to be but I don't understand why people continue to say that it sucks? Compare what it is now to what it was when Bush left office and it is almost night and day. Do people really want to go back to economic policies that cause the recession in the first place?
2012-07-15 04:05:49 PM
1 votes:
Romney has always had a number of undeniable advantages on his side. First off, Obama is a vulnerable President in this election, and he will continue to be as long as the economy and job market continue to suck. Romney also has some insanely deep pocketed people that are very vested in getting him elected, and the kind of money he has at his disposal can affect the outcome of an election, through sheer outspending blunt force if anything.

He also has the support of the Republican base. The Fark Independents, Teabaggers and hell, even the Paultards are all falling in line and backing Romney as we all knew they would. The kind of pedantry Republicans are putting on display in defense of Romney's SEC dealings just reeks of Paultardism. It's the same sort of overtly verbose obfuscation Paultards like to employ when discussing RON PAUL.

And yet, Romney just can't quit farking up, and his campaign keeps tripping on their own goddamn shoes. I believe Romney has always had a somewhat decent chance at beating Obama, particularly with the kind of money he has at his disposal, and yet, as a candidate, he just sucks donkey balls. He keeps shooting himself in the foot and giving traction to every single negative thing about him, and he seems completely incapable of defining himself in any way. Every single attempt he's made to rectify his gray areas just makes it worse, and it's all completely rooted in a pathological lack of honesty.

He just takes the dishonest route on every turn, and it's costing him his advantages. Instead of treating his wealth as a non-issue (which by itself it is) he tries to re-define himself as a "man of the people" and coming across as a bigger effete douche. Instead of standing by his moderate past, he embraces the right wing and looking even more unprincipled. Hell, a smart enough man could spin Bain's shady business practices as a painful but necessary part of the free market but Romney refuses to clarify his role and making the situation even worse.

He's tone deaf. And worse yet, he truly is the best the GOP had to offer.
2012-07-15 03:54:41 PM
1 votes:
Brubold: I hate both parties and the process doesn't work.

Me: I bet //so Vote Republican

Brubold: Democratic party solution sucked and wish the Republicans had something.

Me: So I hit 5 out of 6 on the Powerball, what do I win?
2012-07-15 03:48:30 PM
1 votes:

bugontherug: But have you ever noticed how they seem to hate it when they're asked to take a little of it themselves?


In all honesty, how could you not?

Sane Person: "I'd like some tax credits or social welfare to help take care of my three kids. Me and my husband work full time, but at minimum wage."

CON: "LOONY LIB! DON'T HAVE CHILDREN IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE RESPONSIBILITY!"

Sane Person: "I wanted to go on the pill, but my insurance won't cover birth control."

CON: "SLUT! WHORE! SLUTWHORE PIECE OF SLUT, IT'S ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. SOCIALISM!"


--- FOUR MONTHS LATER ---

Sane Person: "So it looks like Mitt Romney allowed jobs to be outsourced, and profited from that outsourcing."

CON: "LOONY LIB! HOW COULD HE BE RUNNING BAIN IF HE WAS OVER AT THE SLC OLYMPICS?"

Sane Person: "These SEC filings say he was sole director, president, CEO, sole owner, and controlling person of Bain from 1999 to 2002. He could have intervened and stopped it, or alternately left the company completely, but chose neither of those options."

CON: "BIRF CERTFCT LOL! LIBBY BIRFER! BAINERS! LOL!"

Sane Person: "Don't be CEO, sole director, and president if you can't take the responsibility."

CON: "HnnGnnGNnNGngnNGNnnNGnnNGnnngngnGNGGGGNng *whine*"
2012-07-15 03:39:10 PM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: hubiestubert: because they just act on the whims of the Board.

What I really like about your post (satire as it was) is that it nails the "ring around the rosie" tone of the Republican argument perfectly.

They talk about Romney as if he was only the sole shareholder, beholden to the directors and officers of the company.
They talk about Romney as if he was only the chief executive officer, beholden to the shareholders and directors of the company.
They talk about Romney as if he was only the sole director, beholden to the officers and shareholders of the company.

They never, ever mention that he was all three, making him answerable ultimately and only to himself as the most senior manager.

They want to talk about the individual titles and how that divests him of a lot of responsibility; they never want to talk about those big ol' ANDs that string those titles together.



Conservatives claim to be in favor of personal responsibility. But have you ever noticed how they seem to hate it when they're asked to take a little of it themselves?

The bottom line is, Romney:

1) Could have stopped Bain Capital from outsourcing, and
2) Personally profited from Bain Capital's outsourcing.

If that's not enough to assign personal responsibility for the company's conduct, then I'm Zooey Deschanel.

i45.tinypic.com
This is not the poster.
2012-07-15 02:48:51 PM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: because they just act on the whims of the Board.


What I really like about your post (satire as it was) is that it nails the "ring around the rosie" tone of the Republican argument perfectly.

They talk about Romney as if he was only the sole shareholder, beholden to the directors and officers of the company.
They talk about Romney as if he was only the chief executive officer, beholden to the shareholders and directors of the company.
They talk about Romney as if he was only the sole director, beholden to the officers and shareholders of the company.

They never, ever mention that he was all three, making him answerable ultimately and only to himself as the most senior manager.

They want to talk about the individual titles and how that divests him of a lot of responsibility; they never want to talk about those big ol' ANDs that string those titles together.
2012-07-15 02:22:54 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: Because Bush is responsible for Obama's handling of the economy, Romney is responsible for decisions other managers at Bain made, and Rush Limbaugh is fat ergo he's dumb


Also, who has ever said that Bush was responsible for Obama's decisions on the economy? Is it not well-known that the crash occurred due to Bush's incompetence leading up to 2009? I thought everyone knew that. I guess you didn't.

Additionally, who was the making the decisions after 1999? What's his name? Why isn't his name on the documents that Romney signed? Why wasn't he attending board meetings and fulfilling the legal obligations of CEO? How can you fulfill your legal obligations as CEO while letting someone else run the company?
2012-07-15 01:56:20 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: He left Bain in all but name in 1999. He was no longer making decisions


Then why was his name on all of those documents he signed? Why was he attending board meetings in MA?
2012-07-15 01:42:47 PM
1 votes:
WHO is the missing "acting" CEO of Bain while Romney is on leave?

There were those years where Bain DID things - things that affected companies and people. Things that would have - on their own - attracted enough attention to merit SOME mention in the media - if only to the local media to the companies liquidated. Thus, there has to be SOME comment, SOME mention in the press including the phrase "acting CEO" (or some equivalent) referring to a person.

THAT person I'm sure could shed a LOT of light on how things actually went down at the time.

Isn't it WEIRD that that person's name is not known by ANYONE - and in particular NO ONE at Bain?
2012-07-15 01:36:55 PM
1 votes:

Brubold:

I both need and desire meaningful health care reform in this country. It's just too bad that the Democrat solution sucked and there is no Republican solution.


The Democratic solution sucked because *it is* the Republican solution.



As for my solution to the two party system, it's quite simple. Stop voting for the two parties. Start voting for other parties. If enough people start doing this then our two parties will lose power and money.


If a frog could fly, he could get bird pussy. I asked for a viable solution for this country, not a poly-sci wet dream that would need an effort sustained over decades to show any measurable influence at all. Viable for this country. Now. This election season. The very time frame where you advocated that no one vote for either R or D. As it is today, third parties have no opportunities to affect policy at any level higher than mayor or county commissioner. Therefore the only thing that a third party vote on a national ticket does is water down support for either of the big parties. It does not reduce in any way the likelihood of either R or D winning, but it may alter the balance between them. In other words, a wasted vote. I don't subscribe fully to either parties agenda, but I will cast my ballot for the one that more closely aligns with my ideals than the other, rather than dilute support for that party and guarantee a win for the other.
2012-07-15 01:26:12 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: HeartBurnKid: Brubold: Think for yourself.

I've learned, over my 32 years on this Earth, that when people admonish you to "think for yourself", what they mean is "think exactly like I do."

I've learned, over my 42 years on this Earth, that people younger than me are pretty stupid. I don't care what third party you may vote for. I don't care what side of the political spectrum they may be on. Casting your vote for them will do far more than casting your vote for Republicans or Democrats. If you desire proof, I'll make a sexy hand flourish indicating our last 30-40 years of politics. What good has voting for those two parties done this country?


So when you admonish 'stupid' people to think for themselves, did you mean 'think for yourself EXCEPT if that thinking leads you to Republican or Democratic parties' or did you mean 'actually think for yourself'?
2012-07-15 01:22:28 PM
1 votes:

Bontesla: Bontesla : What the hell are you talking about? What I said was, "The numbers aren't a committed vote. The numbers also may vary. I would be interested in looking into it on Monday to see their MOE." In other words, I was warning you not to mistake a poll for a vote commitment. The poll numbers may vary in future months. And that I would be interested to see what their margin of error was.


When did I say anything that sounds like I said polls or votes will never change? When did I say anything remotely close to that? I didn't I said according to polls the numbers look like they are improving for Obama in swing states where those ads are being run and you made up all the fictitious bullshiat of shiat I never said.
2012-07-15 12:48:08 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: Sometimes I wish I could post lithium so as to balance out the mental derangement of the thread posters.

Seriously folks, stop being raving loons over the issue. He left Bain in all but name in 1999. He was no longer making decisions. All the news stories and statements he made at the time say precisely this. That's what a "leave" means.

The comparison to birthers is apt in that no amount of actual discussion or evidence will ever change their minds. You need the attack issue.


Then this man that derides people for wanting free stuff received over a quarter of a million dollars for doing absolutely nothing, amirite?
2012-07-15 12:43:53 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Guntram Shatterhand: derp


So basically all you know about politics you've learned from someone like Maddow or Olbermann. I don't care what side these people are from. Whether it's Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, Olbermann, or whoever, they are simply shills for the two party system. They are paid to make you hate people on the other side of the political system so these two parties can remain in power. Fark them and their worthless opinions. Think for yourself.


Ah yes, all pundits are evil pundits and just as lying as their counterparts on the other side.

Just remember, more viewers gets their cable news from Fox News than from any other source.... and they're less informed for it.

In other words, you can hate the other side all you want in my opinion, as long as your hate is backed with information and facts. The side you say you don't support (but actually do) does NOT have that going for them.
2012-07-15 12:32:32 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Alphax: Brubold: I guess the truth has a Republican bias? Notice I didn't say conservative bias because Romney isn't a conservative.

LOLWUT?

There are very few conservatives in the Republican party.


If you mean 'people who like to keep things the same', as opposed to 'people who want to roll back the last few centuries of human progress', I concur.
2012-07-15 12:31:55 PM
1 votes:

MithrandirBooga: hubiestubert: The GOP should have taken a few months after Obama's election, and I remember when I was derided for this when he took office, to sit down and take a hard look at how McCain went so horribly awry. Not just with the choice of Palin as VP, but in how the whole thing played out. Taken a long hard look at policy positions, where the nation was heading, how the financial implosion came about, and folks decided within the part to just toss that opportunity for a teachable moment and look at what ails the party, and instead, double down on DERP and idiocy.

It's far too late for that. The GOP establishment doesn't realise it's DERP. In the 70's the party started pandering to the religious right, the southern bible belt, who used to be solid Democrats but were now disillusioned over the Democrats support of civil rights. They sold their soul for votes, essentially. Over the past 40 years these extreme people who were courted into the party weaved their way into the very fabric of the party establishment and slowly began kicking the more moderate people out. I mean just look at the mere fact that the term "RINO" even exists; it goes to show you what kind of witch-hunt is going on in the GOP in their quest for ideological purity. If there are any moderates left it's because they either live in an area where the fundies can't hurt them yet (mostly the northeast), or it's because they don't speak up anymore because that'll get them tarred and feathered.

This is a long transition that's entering its end state. People keep saying that the Republicans erred in courting the Tea Party, but that misses a fundamental fact; the Tea Party was never a separate party, it was a rebranding of the Republican party because they learned that the (R) had become a liability after Bush. These were not new party members, they were and have been Republicans for a very long time. The party is so far shifted to insanity that it's now impossible for them to step back and say "Hmm maybe ...


You said it better than I ever could. But I wouldn't call it insanity. I'd call it the end-result of Subjective Reality. And it's the end of their party because the last five years have been a sad attempt to back away from forty years of rube-catering and grab back some initially-conservative viewpoints. But the rubes aren't having it: they're having too much fun playacting revolutionary, screaming racial coding, and generally being attention whores while getting off on pissing off 'liberals,' which apparently means everybody who isn't a raving maniac seeing meaning in shadows.

The American political system has two sides now: the Democrats who are trying to solve problems and the Republicans who don't give a shiat. It's now constructive behavior versus nihilism, and we're going to see this play out until the Republicans hit a point where they piss everybody off and can't come back (which may have already happened) or their voter base dies off and nobody votes for them. Either way, the long haul seems to be dealing with these psychotics for a decade or so. And it seems they're intent on going out biatching about the delusions in their heads.
2012-07-15 12:17:31 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: There are very few conservatives in the Republican party.


Of course, that's your problem: the Republican Party is not ideologically pure enough. You must have purity of derp!

/Yes, yes, split your party. SPLIT YOUR PARTY.
2012-07-15 12:12:18 PM
1 votes:

Fuzzmosis: Here's my serious question:

Lets assume Mitt Romney is a terrible human being and an example of why Marx wrote what he wrote or why Marie Antoinnette lost her head.

Why, instead of celebrating that "Yay, my side is going to win this election!" are you not demanding public servants and political officers who are not storybook evil? From the democratic side as well as the republican? Even if you disagree with the long or short term political goals, do you not want a dutiful, skilled leader?

Is it a free market American thing that "Well, he's rich, insane, possibly sociopathic but since he's got money let him run?"

Or are politics just so... gone that it is actually irrelevant the quality of the person anymore? That a popularity contest run for billions of dollars and millions of voices yelling and contradictin each other is all that it has come down to?


Well, for one thing, the opposition (President Obama) ISN'T story book evil. I've found him to be quite competent, though he has been stymied because of how politics and our government works. Second, the problem is that there is a group of people, apparently quite a large group of people who 'want' this individual to become president, or didn't want his opponents to have the same shot. I do not know why someone more talented, less evil (this is going under the same assumption you stated), or more moral than Mitt Romney chose not to run, but I cannot argue that of the people who ran, he was chosen and that group of people is now trying to have him elected. How exactly would you keep democracy while eliminating the option of a bad decision?

And I wouldn't say that the quality of the person is irrelevant, otherwise we wouldn't be bringing these issues up like we are right here. Again, this is a democracy, there is no communal group think across the continent: people disagree, and how are they going to express this? By talking, sometimes shouting, sometimes screaming, sometimes chanting. Sometimes someone's speech renders another's voice inaudible.
2012-07-15 11:19:18 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: hmm...MyRandomName apparently had a temper tantrum after getting biatch smacked by various facts. that had to hurt.

Well, you know, facts tend to have a liberal bias.


I suspect the coming week is going to be more of the same from many Republicans - temper tantrums, ad hominem attacks, changing the subject, red herrings....the entire discussion over Bain capital is causing a GOP meltdown.
2012-07-15 11:17:28 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: is this STILL going on...?

It gets better. A Romney adviser just said that he retired from Bain retroactively to 1999.



I'm trying to think of a worse possible response, and coming up blank. "Let's both admit to one of the major points of the allegations against us, and look absolutely clueless and out of touch at the same time!"

Good grief. This isn't even funny, it's just sad. I've worked with individuals who had a room-temperature IQ, a list of psychoactive meds as long as your arm... and most of them had a better sense of what-not-to-say-in-public than these idiots.
2012-07-15 11:17:17 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: hmm...MyRandomName apparently had a temper tantrum after getting biatch smacked by various facts. that had to hurt.


Well, you know, facts tend to have a liberal bias.
2012-07-15 11:14:03 AM
1 votes:

The Why Not Guy: MeinRS6: Obama's team will milk this set of lies for as long as they can

What exactly is the lie?


That threw me too --- until I realized that he had to have meant:

"Obama's team will milk this set of lies (by Romney) for as long as they can."
... which is likely correct.

Then they'll probably move on to the NEXT set of lies (by Romney).

(See it IS possible to agree with anyone on Fark!)
2012-07-15 11:10:10 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: is this STILL going on...?


It gets better. A Romney adviser just said that he retired from Bain retroactively to 1999.
2012-07-15 11:02:21 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Aldon: Start making comparisons with birthers after Willard Mitt Romney releases his tax returns, the IRS verifies them as authentic and many elected Democrats mention that they still have many questions if Mitt is a criminal or not.

Even the Republican Governors want Romney to release his tax returns.


Do you think Romney is as smart as Obama has been in the past about letting outrage from the opposing party build up (in Obama's case, the birf certificate) and then drop a bombshell of.... nothing. I.E., Romney's tax filings from the past 20 years show NOTHING. Possible? Yes. Likely, no.

Romney's campaign has been as undisciplined as anything else so to think they are planning a grand unveiling after allowing one side to cry foul for so long is highly unlikely and takes a great deal of planning that can't be done on an Etch-a-Sketch.
2012-07-15 10:56:34 AM
1 votes:
2012-07-15 10:42:40 AM
1 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: Anenu: And if I own a dog and it bites you in the nuts who gets in trouble me or the dog?

I'm not sure, but I bet it ends with them strapping the dog to the roof of Romney's car.


Or better yet, use the defense that I was on vacation at the time that the dog bit you, so technically, it wasn't my dog. All official ownership of my dog was transferred to my house sitter while I was on vacation. It doesn't matter that I was the one who trained the dog to develop a taste for gonads....
2012-07-15 10:24:11 AM
1 votes:

MeinRS6: The Bain crap is going no where.

Liberals are desperate because Obama sucks ass as president.


Your short feckless opinion really does nothing to counter the facts presented here and elsewhere that Romney either lied to the SEC or to you, as one of his frothing-at-the-mouth highly uneducated voters.
2012-07-15 10:21:26 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: hubiestubert: Which is it kids? Do you want a President who takes no responsibility for his Administration? Which is it?

You know if Romney wins the presidency, he's going to blame the slow economic recovery of Obama and he and his mouth breathing supporters won't recognize the irony in that at all.


Kind of like now where they go:

'Stop bringing up Bush! He's out of office! Get with the times!'

and then 5 seconds later,

'Carter sucks! He's horrible! He is the reason we are in today's mess!'
2012-07-15 10:14:58 AM
1 votes:
You know Republicans are depserate when they start accusing Democrats of being as wild-eyed crazy and stupid as they are.
2012-07-15 10:06:14 AM
1 votes:
Now Romney knows how that dog felt.
2012-07-15 09:52:31 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: The fact that they're trying to paint SEC documents as some sort of crazy conspiracy is hilarious.

Factcheck.org and other sources have shown that Romney wasn't running Bain after 1999 but keep farking that chicken.

That's what you have? Factcheck and a wapo editorial that try desperately to believe that Romney had zero control over the company as CEO, sole shareholder and managing director?

Oh, and while he was "away from the company" he attended board meetings and signed documents. And nobody else has stepped forward claiming that they fulfilled the duties of the CEO while Romney claims to be away.


Oh and he drew a $100,000 salary during that time as well. Not stock options. Not dividends. Salary.
2012-07-15 09:51:55 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: The fact that they're trying to paint SEC documents as some sort of crazy conspiracy is hilarious.

Factcheck.org and other sources have shown that Romney wasn't running Bain after 1999 but keep farking that chicken.

That's what you have? Factcheck and a wapo editorial that try desperately to believe that Romney had zero control over the company as CEO, sole shareholder and managing director?


Oh, and while he was "away from the company" he attended board meetings and signed documents. And nobody else has stepped forward claiming that they fulfilled the duties of the CEO while Romney claims to be away.
2012-07-15 09:50:34 AM
1 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: The fact that they're trying to paint SEC documents as some sort of crazy conspiracy is hilarious.

Factcheck.org and other sources have shown that Romney wasn't running Bain after 1999 but keep farking that chicken.


That's what you have? Factcheck and a wapo editorial that try desperately to believe that Romney had zero control over the company as CEO, sole shareholder and managing director?
2012-07-15 09:45:40 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Raharu: MeinRS6: The Bain crap is going no where.

Liberals are desperate because Obama sucks ass as president.

You sound tired Meinrs.

And obsessed with ass.

NTTAWWT...

You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya


I only trust people who like big butts. They cannot lie.

/Rmoney's wife has a skinny ass
2012-07-15 09:40:11 AM
1 votes:

More_Like_A_Stain: So Romney did nothing wrong here. He is neither lying to the SEC nor the public with his contradictory statements. He's simply demonstrating his history of "hands off" style of management. Have I got this right?


...which begs the question, will he continue this "hands off" style management in the Presidency, and just let government just do what it does without any oversight?

Which is it kids? Do you want a President who takes no responsibility for his Administration? Which is it?

THIS is the problem with Romney. It has been my problem with him since my UMaine days, before he headed to Utah. THIS is an issue. It always has been. Zero responsibility, and the only folks who champion this guy are folks who either are going to profit directly from him, or folks who haven't been paying attention to what he's been doing for over 20 years...
2012-07-15 09:25:29 AM
1 votes:

b0rg9: "President is a divider, not a uniter..."


Oh give me a break. This is coming from the same network that treats Obama like he's the enemy of the state.
2012-07-15 09:24:40 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: "screwing companies for profit"-

You actually typed this sentence. The fact that you did clearly demonstrates that you have no idea about how finance or private equity works. You've built this false picture in your mind about an evil political opponent and his evil past and facts and logic will not dissuade you from that view.


Fair point. He didn't screw over the companies.

He just screwed over 1) the workforce, 2) the pensioners, and 3) even the previous management, just to name a few of the people who get f*cked in leveraged buyouts. But on paper, those companies sure looked a lot better when Mitt's company got done with them!
2012-07-15 09:16:29 AM
1 votes:

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: The fact that they're trying to paint SEC documents as some sort of crazy conspiracy is hilarious.

Factcheck.org and other sources have shown that Romney wasn't running Bain after 1999 but keep farking that chicken.


Way to unthinkingly regurgitate media derp. You and Factcheck miss the point.

Mitt Romney was no mere shareholder collecting money based on the actions of distant managers over whom he had no real authority. No.

Mitt Romney had full legal control of Bain Capital. He could have directed Bain to act differently than it did at any time. He personally profited from what happened at Bain Capital. By any reasonable standard applied by any fair minded person, Mitt Romney is personally responsible for the actions of Bain Capital.

This is one people can understand. Mitt Romney both took the money from, and could have stopped the outsourcing of American jobs overseas. This isn't one that's going away because Factcheck got its assessment wrong, and the corporate controlled media is circling the wagons to protect a favored son. Just as Reagan famously boasted of "going around the media," so is the Obama campaign going around the media on this. And it should: if the media are committed to obfuscating the facts, someone needs to get the truth out there.
2012-07-15 09:10:53 AM
1 votes:

MithrandirBooga: MithrandirBooga: They will not stop until either the party completely fractures, or the country fractures. I just hope the party will crumble first.


That being said, I don't think I'd mind the country fracturing at this point. Hell, if just Texas alone secedes, things in this country would get so much better on the federal level. Imagine if the entire south packs up and goes. Well, bye. Have fun in your race to the bottom, us northernfolk will build a great society. With bullet trains, motherfarkers. And no, they won't come visit your retarded asses once you realise how awesome they are. If you even do.


But then we'll have a whole new illegal immigration problem.
2012-07-15 09:06:51 AM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: -snip-


While that was well thought and stated any positive changes in the GOP will have to come from new leadership as from everything I have seen over the past 6 years the entire main part of the party has gone into rabid dog mode and barks and chases every car that passes by unaware the eventually this will get it hit by a bus.
2012-07-15 08:58:04 AM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: Cubansaltyballs: THAT is why the Republicans are scared. They can't escape it. Hell, with McCain, his money came from beer and Kerry's came from Ketchup, and Romney's comes from harvesting the nest-eggs and blood of the middle class to he can sell it to China and fatten his bank account in the Caymans.

Your whole comment was fantastic. I just reposted it on Facebook to give some context to a comment I made about private equity.

If Obama really can get that bit of truth across to people, he'll blow Mitt Romney away in the election.


---

Exactly. In terms of pure message, Romney's best-case scenario is for him to explain to the American people that being a completely absentee six-figure CEO/owner is common practice in his world, and he can prove that's what he was, so there was no inconsistency at all among his actions, statements, and SEC filings.

Obama's camp is aware of this and banking on this not sitting well at all with "Main Street" American people, even if Romney never lied or broke the law.

Whether a significant number of people actually respond by rejecting Romney is another matter.
2012-07-15 08:58:04 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: cretinbob: quizzical: I don't think Romney did anything illegal. I do think he has been misrepresenting the degree to which he was in charge of Bain's actions.
If he really did leave in 1999 and then Bain used the fact that Romney was still in charge as a selling point and to keep it's stock value up (Remember Romney was being listed as sole owner of 100% of the company stock) then yes, it's illegal.

Ok, this is just becoming an altruism, liberals are functionally retarded. HE WAS THE farkING OWNER YOU IGNORANT POS. Get that through your head. He will be on EVERY SEC FILING DUE TO THAT FACT.

I'm done, you liberals are just farking stupid.


weknowmemes.com
2012-07-15 08:36:39 AM
1 votes:

slackist: MyRandomName: Ok, this is just becoming an altruism, liberals are functionally retarded. HE WAS THE farkING OWNER YOU IGNORANT POS. Get that through your head. He will be on EVERY SEC FILING DUE TO THAT FACT.

I'm done, you liberals are just farking stupid

Altruism?

Anyway, in every company I have ever worked for the owner damn well wanted to know what was going on if big decisions were being made by downline management, especially if their name was going to be on the documents.


There's also the fact that the sworn documents he filed indicate, yes, that he was the owner. But more importantly, that he was the CEO, managing director, and "controlling person" at Bain. And, he didn't just collect dividends. He collected a salary for work purportedly done.

I love the smell of right-wing desperation in the morning. Smells like... victory.
2012-07-15 08:31:25 AM
1 votes:

NowhereMon: GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.

GAT, it's not like you to biatch about the system, but you know as well as anyone here that the modmins do it to troll the sane folks and drive the refreshes and click-throughs. It's not really bias.


I'm not saying trolling sane folks isn't part of the reason the modmins do it. But it's definitely also about bias. Modmins here are conservative activists. Not only do they routinely green light right-wing flame bait, but they often fail to green light major stories that would generate refreshes and click-throughs too--but only when they're major stories that generally help "the left."
2012-07-15 08:08:52 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Ok, this is just becoming an altruism, liberals are functionally retarded. HE WAS THE farkING OWNER YOU IGNORANT POS. Get that through your head. He will be on EVERY SEC FILING DUE TO THAT FACT.

I'm done, you liberals are just farking stupid


Altruism?

Anyway, in every company I have ever worked for the owner damn well wanted to know what was going on if big decisions were being made by downline management, especially if their name was going to be on the documents.
2012-07-15 07:55:55 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: some boilerplate sec filings.

"

I keep hearing about these. If they are so boilerplate and not worth the paper they are printed on, then why is lying on them a felony?
2012-07-15 07:14:41 AM
1 votes:
I owned the knife that stabbed the victim. I was in control of the knife that stabbed the victim. I was holding the knife that stabbed the victim.

But I didn't stab the victim. Someone else did.
2012-07-15 06:03:10 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Ok, this is just becoming an altruism, liberals are functionally retarded.


i93.photobucket.com
2012-07-15 05:25:05 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: They simply don't mean what you think they mean. It's not reality's fault you know jack shiat about how SEC filings work.


You're so enlightened. Break it down for us then. How do you sign acquisition papers for a company and yet not be "involved in any way" with the operations of that company?

Because honestly? Those two things seem like the polar f*cking opposite of each other. Could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Enlighten us.
2012-07-15 05:16:14 AM
1 votes:

wspguy: Good lord...only on fark would a post-midnight Saturday night thread about obama get 250+ remarks.
This place couldn't be more of a left-wing circle jerk if it tried


You guys think about circle jerks a lot. Somethig you want to tell us?
2012-07-15 04:37:20 AM
1 votes:
Well, the State of Hawaii, at Obama's order, released a copy of his birth certificate... to make things fair for the republicans... if the IRS, at Romney's behest, releases his tax returns, I will not question the authenticity of said returns.
2012-07-15 04:00:53 AM
1 votes:
Since the GOP has absolutely no policy ideas, what else are we going to talk about during the campaigns?
2012-07-15 03:56:19 AM
1 votes:

DeltaPunch: acefox1: NewportBarGuy: acefox1: farm9.staticflickr.com

I've seen that image dozens of times... That's the first time I noticed there's a guy stuck on the bow. Wow, that had to suck.

Yeah each time I see that guy holding on for dear life I imagine that this boat-drop must have been the slowest and scariest 3 seconds in his life.

[img171.imageshack.us image 524x640]

There, that's better. ;)


three or four comments all wrong, the BOW is in the water, the STERN or back of the boat is where the dude is...

Good argument for Obama, so Mittens you were president on paper, trusting your company of which you are 100% owner and responsible for to underlings? This is how you plan to run the US?
2012-07-15 03:54:50 AM
1 votes:

MeinRS6: I'd bet a lot of money that we won't be talking about Bain in October.


I have a lot of money. I'll take that bet.
2012-07-15 03:45:19 AM
1 votes:
Wow, 200+ posts and I don't see any of the usual suspects. Not a hint of red. Weird.
2012-07-15 03:44:25 AM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.

Do indie/moderates/libs post these ridiculous columns in hopes for an easy greenlight, or do they actually believe this sh*t? I don't have the answer.

If you 'conservative' assrabbits wish to persuade anyone, you need to mine deeper for realistic and sane columnists. I know it's difficult, but you still have a few that haven't gone full teatard. Submit those, and we will read them with a straight face and only make dick jokes after careful consideration of TFA.

But at this rate, you deserve the ridicule. If you were a puppy maybe someone would rub your nose in it, but you're a grown-ass man submitting this tripe from Bovine University.


Don't be silly. Any writer that doesn't write in lockstep with Fox Wharrrgarbl is instantly RINO and a liberal plant.

There's no such thing as a realistic, sane conservative columnist. And that's a damn shame.
2012-07-15 03:40:41 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.


Do indie/moderates/libs post these ridiculous columns in hopes for an easy greenlight, or do they actually believe this sh*t? I don't have the answer.

If you 'conservative' assrabbits wish to persuade anyone, you need to mine deeper for realistic and sane columnists. I know it's difficult, but you still have a few that haven't gone full teatard. Submit those, and we will read them with a straight face and only make dick jokes after careful consideration of TFA.

But at this rate, you deserve the ridicule. If you were a puppy maybe someone would rub your nose in it, but you're a grown-ass man submitting this tripe from Bovine University.
2012-07-15 03:39:32 AM
1 votes:

MeinRS6: The Bain crap is going no where.

Liberals are desperate because Obama sucks ass as president.


img444.imageshack.us
2012-07-15 03:29:19 AM
1 votes:

TheAlternator: I fail at links.

Link


You fail at a lot more than links.
2012-07-15 03:28:28 AM
1 votes:

TheAlternator: Here's the amusing thing.

Liberals on Fark complain about how the Republican party is evil, hateful, spews lies, wouldn't know the truth if it punched them in the face, etc. Yet here, they have an example where some of Obama's reelection folks floated a false rumor, and then they must blindly rush to the defense of Team Democrat without regard to actual fact.

It's the exact same thing that many conservatives do, rushing blindly to support Team Republican even when obvious fact says they're wrong. To anyone without a team affiliation (I voted C'thulhu in '08, because why not?) it's hilarious in a sad, sad sort of way.

/ http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is -all-wet/
// In before the Fark Liberal Apology Brigade blasts me as a Republican shill


Do tell, what is this 'false rumor?'
2012-07-15 03:23:29 AM
1 votes:

TheAlternator: some of Obama's reelection folks floated a false rumor, read SEC documents


FTFY.

Seriously, there's no "false rumor" here. Either Romney lied to the SEC, or he lied to us. One or the other must be true.
2012-07-15 03:22:10 AM
1 votes:

Fuzzmosis: Why, instead of celebrating that "Yay, my side is going to win this election!" are you not demanding public servants and political officers who are not storybook evil? From the democratic side as well as the republican? Even if you disagree with the long or short term political goals, do you not want a dutiful, skilled leader?


Because we already have that from the Democratic side. There's quite a few things I don't agree with the guy on, but "dutiful" and "skilled" are damn good descriptions of the man. I'm happy that "my side" is going to win the election because "my side" actually has that competent, non-storybook-evil candidate.

/to be totally honest, "my side" is US Pirate Party
//but I'll take Obama for now
2012-07-15 03:20:17 AM
1 votes:
...and Happy 100th Birthday Woody Guthrie.

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?
2012-07-15 03:20:04 AM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: The point is, at the end of the day, if the buck had to stop with anybody, it was going to stop with him.


Romney wishes he had even one one-thousandth the amount of integrity that Truman did.
2012-07-15 03:19:56 AM
1 votes:

TheAlternator: Here's the amusing thing.

...

/ http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is -all-wet/
// In before the Fark Liberal Apology Brigade blasts me as a Republican shill


You're kinda late to this story dude. Maybe you should read a thread before commenting.
2012-07-15 03:17:01 AM
1 votes:
Oh, and I hope this story hounds Romney and his merry band of plutocrats all the way to November...

fark Romney and anyone who supports that privileged piece of shiat.
2012-07-15 02:58:20 AM
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: You know what the best part about Romney is...

He has spent his life trying to live up to his dad's success and outshine him, and today, his dad would be ashamed. He'd look at his son as just another empty suit that has raped and pillaged his way to a mountain of wealth. A son that has no convictions, no beliefs, no moral center, nothing. Without Mitt, George Romney may have been remembered in a good way, but after his son, the name Romney will forever be associated with the rape of the middle class and going whichever way the wind blows.


No disagreement on where you are going, I'm actually going to underline your point. I gre up in Michigan, and by all accounts, George Romney was an excellent governor. Including decisions made during the 6-day riot in Detroit 1967. Before that, he was a businessman who made a difference, saving Nash, Kelvinator, etc by integrating them into American Motors and developing the small-car niche.
2012-07-15 02:34:09 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: honestly, they should just man up, say 'yeah, Romney was running bain capital' and move on with life.


And then the Obama campaign attacks him for destroying KBToys, among others.

Of course, the opposite means that Romney is guilty of at least 3 counts of fraud.

That's why it's a Catch-22 situation.
2012-07-15 02:31:12 AM
1 votes:
I love this. RW pieces everywhere are jumping over themselves to claim that Romney didn't enact a felony. They completely ignore that it's a binary proposal and focus on the criminal aspect.

Soo.... I guess he's a liar, then? I thought Forbes laid it out really nicely, myself, right at the end of their 35 questions. Yeah, I can believe Romney was largely hands off, but I can't believe that Bain would make some big moves without even giving Romney a phone call for a go-ahead or to ask his opinion.
2012-07-15 02:25:14 AM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: Weaver95: but enough 'smart money' in the Republican party understand that a discussion on vulture capitalism is not what they want to see happen.

Which is why if this narrative gets pushed hard enough, some of the party bigwigs will begin quietly abandoning Romney, figuring that it's less damaging to lose one election than it is to put vulture capitalism under the spotlight for too long.


I dunno...the GOP can't afford to lose to Obama. Limbaugh has been hammering home the point that Obama *has* to be a one term president. if the GOP insiders decide that another Obama term is preferable to making vulture capitalism a major talking point, then they risk a LOT of anger from the rank and file Republicans.

again - none of this looks good for the Republican leadership OR their corporate backers. they have to keep a lot of things quiet...so much so that it's actually starting to impact their ability to win elections. past a certain point, they're going to decide to just stop having elections and that a coup is just easier and more cost effective than mucking about with maintaining the illusion that we're a democracy.
2012-07-15 02:24:56 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Bontesla: The author is an idiot.

The author is Erick Erickson. I didn't realize it needed to be actually said he was an idiot. I thought this was one of those universally known things by now.


Unlike you, some people don't click on RedState links.
2012-07-15 02:13:21 AM
1 votes:

findthefish: Second, from this understanding, can his phone records be pulled to ensure he had no communication with Bain after his 1999 departure?


That's not even necessary. The guy was signing paperwork for Bain's acquisitions well into 2002 - hell, there are witnesses from Bain who say that this whole thing was treated as a temporary leave of absence, not a clean break.
2012-07-15 02:05:54 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: except that i'm pretty sure the GOP voters won't care that Romney's an idiot. they'll vote for him no matter what. I guess it depends on what the independents think about these sort of stories.

Nobody is going to win any GOP voters. Romney is guaranteed 40% of the vote just by having an (R) next to his name... it's that 10.1% he needs that will be hard to get.

there's an outside chance that Romney could lose GOP votes tho. this bain capital thing is really nasty - Romney is/was a vulture capitalist, and that DID hit the middle class GOP voters pretty hard. Plus there's the whole mormon thing. evangelicals have issues voting for a mormon. got me as to what effect (if any) that all might have...but it could split off a few votes here and there.


There is also the Stericycle abortion thing.

"Romney made millions off of abortion," takes all those red meat voters who scream, "I don't see why I should vote for Romney he's just as librul as 0bammy!" and gives them one more reason to not vote.

Sure, it's not going to get a lot of play for the same reason that the NRA won't mention Obama has a better record on their line than Romney, but it's there.
2012-07-15 02:05:25 AM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: FactCheck.org


So they became what the ostensibly set out to stop. I guess there's money in it, but being televangelists is pretty profitable too, and not every televangelist is trying to fark the nation politically (just the pocketbooks of the gullible).
2012-07-15 01:57:34 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: problem is, the GOP is starting to lose control over their narrative. Team Romney has been falling apart over this whole bain capital thing.


Oh absolutely. I was referring to the beliefs of the base and agreeing with the other poster about people who equate wealth to morality.

However, they're totally failing with that narrative and Romney. It's too easy to see how awful these business methods are, and also... Republicans have pushed the "They're taking our jobs" point for a long time, so their base already understands that jobs ARE being shipped overseas. That makes it a lot easier to say "Yup, and that guy right there with all the money that runs the big companies, he's the one doing it."
2012-07-15 01:57:00 AM
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: oh I know. i'm just amazed that someone on Team Romney didn't see this issue coming a mile off. I mean - its the obvious ploy, right? Obama lobs a softball at Romney to get a sneak peak at how he's going to handle the obvious stuff and then BAM! Romney trips over the easy pitch, falls flat on his face and breaks his nose.

i'm amazed at this.


It's only the first inning. Eventually his tax returns will come out and show the real horrors of Romney's wealth, like those movies where the rich guy has the corpses of 30 children he raped under is house... or he'll keep them secret and people will imagine the worst, and they probably won't even be close.

My guess, is that Romney hid piles of money in Switzerland and was one of those "tax evaders" you read about when the IRS offers them amnesty for paying back taxes and penalties. That's my first bet. The second is that he made money from company that would look really bad, like a state-run enterprise of Moamar Qaudafi, or Al Assad, or Hugo Chavez or the Bin Laden family.

Think of this perspective... John McCain has seen the tax returns and figured Sarah Palin was less of a liability. Let that sink in for a minute.


Oh it's going to be amazing to see what Romney's really been up to. Like profiting from the disposal of aborted fetuses. The evangelicals will love that.

Though I doubt the Democrats will have the gall to push this too hard. But if the situations were reversed and Obama had profited off this Stericycle company, Fox News would be running "Fetus Profit" stories on an endless loop until November.
2012-07-15 01:53:55 AM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: Corvus: Fuzzmosis: Is it a free market American Republican thing that "Well, he's rich, insane, possibly sociopathic but since he's got money let him run?"

FTFY

Basically Republicans have this belief that capitalism works like the afterlife. If you are a good person you become rich. If you are a bad person you become poor. So they see someone like Romney and go "He is rich, has to be smart and a good worker" because that is their dogma about capitalism. (well unless they are Warren Buffet then they can just ignore that belief like they do).

It's become some of their narrative about religion too. See: Joel Osteen and various other prosperity gospel frauds.


problem is, the GOP is starting to lose control over their narrative. Team Romney has been falling apart over this whole bain capital thing.
2012-07-15 01:39:36 AM
1 votes:

ArcadianRefugee: First, let's dispense with the bull shiatake mushrooms.

And that's when i stopped reading. If you are going to write as an adult for adults, write like an adult and avoid using goofy childish euphemisms. If you're gonna 'cuss', cuss; otherwise, avoid it altogether.


there's at least some humor to be had in the site you posted this on further editing an already childish substitution. on a daily basis, we're reduced to shiat, biatch and other words having random A's inserted into them, as that apparently makes them OK.
2012-07-15 01:31:38 AM
1 votes:

Bontesla: The numbers aren't a committed vote. The numbers also may vary. I would be interested in looking into it on Monday to see their MOE.

I've seen other polls that support my suspicion. This isn't me insisting reality is wrong.

Undecided voters will not be voting for Obama. They're just undecided against Romney. Nearly every recent poll regarding their indecision supports this. The most that the Bain scandal should do is decrease voter participation. It shouldn't technically convert votes in any statistical manner.

So, as much as you'd like to pretend that I'm afraid of my shadow, you're simply an idiot for assuming you know anything about how my conclusions are formed.


They aren't a committed vote? Really?

So then your beliefs ARE based on committed votes instead? Please tell us how you opinion is based on these "Committed votes". My numbers may vary?

Please tell us all how what you opinion is based on is based on committed votes and won't vary like mine will.

Link us to these polls of "commited votes" that don't vary. I would love to see them!
2012-07-15 01:29:19 AM
1 votes:

quizzical: I don't think Romney did anything illegal. I do think he has been misrepresenting the degree to which he was in charge of Bain's actions.

If he really did leave in 1999 and then Bain used the fact that Romney was still in charge as a selling point and to keep it's stock value up (Remember Romney was being listed as sole owner of 100% of the company stock) then yes, it's illegal.
2012-07-15 01:28:52 AM
1 votes:
Bain is a massive company. They probably stripped assents in 3/4 of the states.

Couldn't a tailored ad be made in virtually every state where most voters would know someone, or at least a friend of a friend, who was laid off in a local company? That would be pretty brutal.
2012-07-15 01:26:38 AM
1 votes:

spongeboob: /What kind of douchebag parents with the last name Erickson would name their son Erick?


No wonder he is so pissed about everything.
2012-07-15 01:23:20 AM
1 votes:

ApatheticMonkey: /Unless... They built another Romneybot to control Bain while this one did the Governor thing!


It wouldn't be the first time a cyborg was sent back in time to become governor.

upload.wikimedia.org
2012-07-15 01:20:50 AM
1 votes:

heap: Weaver95: except that i'm pretty sure the GOP voters won't care that Romney's an idiot.

just going by the comments in this article, they would be offended if he wasn't an idiot.

gooble gobble gooble gobble one of us one of us, and all that good stuff.


That's absurd beyond belief. He was born filthy rich, he's a Mormon, and he can't describe a simple lemonade without coming off like some kind of machine. He's 10x further removed from the average American experience than Obama ever was.
2012-07-15 01:19:39 AM
1 votes:
FTA: It is well established that Mitt Romney left Bain to go salvage the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. It is also well established that his name remained on some SEC documents. This stems from winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital. It is a quirk in the law. It has been well vetted. Even FactCheck.org and the Washington Post are unpersuaded by Team Obama's hyperbole.

I posted this in another thread earlier today...it's quite relevant to this one:

FactCheck.org also stated the following in a more recent post:

"And we'll just note for the record that FactCheck.org has also found numerous instances in which Romney has also strayed from the facts in accusations against Obama. He also claimed that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital - a claim we found lacked support because it took credit for jobs added by companies long after Romney had left the Bain."

Romney's shaky job claims

By taking credit for jobs created by companies Bain invested in after 1999, Romney leaves no doubt that he was still active in the company. If he wasn't, then he should 'fess up and admit that his job creation claims were lies.
2012-07-15 01:19:17 AM
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: So, it may seem foolish for him to relent on Bain, but it's actually a pretty solid strategy. Fire a couple of salvos at Bain and when they are ducking for cover, Obama can put out a positive message. If you've noticed, in each of these rounds so far, the salvos is larger and more damaging each time.

This is July. Obama is going to lay waste to Romney come October.


I tend to agree. His campaign is always highly effective and organized, and I think he's smart enough to realize that voter apathy could be an issue this election, and going TOO negative will increase that. Planting some negative ideas about Romney, then shifting focus to positive things, and ramping it up a bit each time is a solid strategy.
2012-07-15 01:18:52 AM
1 votes:

Bungles: I saw a good 10 minutes of Fox News today, waiting for a takeaway.

Their line is "Idiots who dislike Romney are jealous of personal financial success".

That's their entire line.


I'd personally like to apologize for playing the devils advocate in yesterday's Romney thread. I didn't at all know that was the official party line ._.
2012-07-15 01:16:36 AM
1 votes:
I saw a good 10 minutes of Fox News today, waiting for a takeaway.

Their line is "Idiots who dislike Romney are jealous of personal financial success".

That's their entire line.
2012-07-15 01:15:55 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: except that i'm pretty sure the GOP voters won't care that Romney's an idiot.


just going by the comments in this article, they would be offended if he wasn't an idiot.

gooble gobble gooble gobble one of us one of us, and all that good stuff.
2012-07-15 01:13:59 AM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Bontesla: The author is an idiot.

No, he's just arguing against a straw man. The people that think Romney did something illegal at Bain are so few as to be essentially nonexistent, but as the author argues, all three of those imaginary people are wrong.

The bulk of people who bring up Bain, however, aren't asserting that anything illegal went on, they're saying it was blatantly unethical and also immoral, both of which are pretty much 100% correct in the vast majority of philosophical and religious systems.


No, the author is an idiot for comparing the Bain scandal to the Birther absurdity.
2012-07-15 01:13:20 AM
1 votes:

wademh: wademh: It's sort of true.
In reality, the people who are making the biggest deal out of Bain are those that would never have voted for RMoney regardless. And likewise, birthers don't really care about Obama's birthplace, they just think they have a gotcha issue.

Corvus:
No, polls are showing independents do care about this.

That surprises me. Then again, I'm not understanding undecided independents right now.


Obama Battleground States Lead Expands Over Romney, Poll Shows
Among swing-state respondents, 18 percent say what they've seen and heard about Romney's business record gives them a more positive opinion about the Republican candidate, versus 33 percent who say it's more negative. That's compared to the national 23-to-28 percent margin on this question.

The numbers in the swing states are increasing for Obama.
2012-07-15 01:12:55 AM
1 votes:
oi45.tinypic.com
2012-07-15 01:12:41 AM
1 votes:

wademh: wademh: It's sort of true.
In reality, the people who are making the biggest deal out of Bain are those that would never have voted for RMoney regardless. And likewise, birthers don't really care about Obama's birthplace, they just think they have a gotcha issue.

Corvus:
No, polls are showing independents do care about this.

That surprises me. Then again, I'm not understanding undecided independents right now.


I really doubt there are any actual undecided independents and I also doubt this will actually change votes.
2012-07-15 01:10:23 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: sure, Romney will take a hit...but its WAY early in the game. plenty of time to recover. letting this issue build up a momentum of its own is stupid.


Kerry never shook the flip-flop moniker, and Romney won't lose his smarmy salesman moniker, either.
2012-07-15 01:09:18 AM
1 votes:
1) The author comes across as mentally disabled.
2) If anyone wants to play a game called "count the defense mechanisms," that article is a good beginner level read.
2012-07-15 01:09:08 AM
1 votes:

Anenu: Let me get this straight question whether or not Romney was involved in company in a time when they did several unAmerican things at a time when he was listed as the CEO is the same as questing Obama's birth location or questioning his religion?


If you are a retard, yes.
2012-07-15 01:08:03 AM
1 votes:

MisterTweak: Wait, so the defense is that "he didn't actually *do* anything, he just got a paycheck"?

When your defense is that you did less for a company than the guy who emptied the garbage cans, but you get paid more in one month than he does in ten years, you might just wanna rethink that strategy a tiny bit.

I think Mitt confuses OJ Simpson's acquittal with actual innocence.


Which still makes Romney a liar because he has been saying he "left the company".
2012-07-15 01:05:49 AM
1 votes:

Bontesla: Weaver95: Cubansaltyballs: Weaver95: Bontesla: I really thought I'd enjoy this scandal more but talking with Republicans brings out the violence within me.

i'm absolutely fascinated watching the GOP flub this whole debate over bain capital.

What's to flub? They have a clear choice... admit their "Job Creator" (blessings and peace be upon him) sent jobs overseas, destroyed companies for a profit and practiced what most people would call an abhorrent mutation of "capitalism"... or they can admit he lied to the SEC.

honestly, they should just man up, say 'yeah, Romney was running bain capital' and move on with life. acting this way just makes it look like Romney has something to hide.

I expect a carefully worded statement to explain that Romney was "active" until 2002 but that he never contradicted himself. People simply misunderstood his level of activity.


sure, Romney will take a hit...but its WAY early in the game. plenty of time to recover. letting this issue build up a momentum of its own is stupid.
2012-07-15 01:05:28 AM
1 votes:

violentsalvation: I'm convinced all this Bain sh*t is just closeted hype for the new Batman movie. "I'm Washington's reckoning". Yes, I know they are spelled different.


Doesn't really fit. Romney's more like Two-Face.

i.imgur.com
2012-07-15 12:56:13 AM
1 votes:
So Bain Capital is the new Haliburton.

Hehe....
2012-07-15 12:55:14 AM
1 votes:

GhostFish: GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.

This wasn't auto-greened to try to spread what's in the article. It was auto-greened to get you frothing about what's in the article and to keep you posting and increasing page-views and clickthroughs.

It's not about Left or Right. It's about money.


(it's why I don't even click the links)
2012-07-15 12:54:31 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.


GAT, it's not like you to biatch about the system, but you know as well as anyone here that the modmins do it to troll the sane folks and drive the refreshes and click-throughs. It's not really bias.
2012-07-15 12:54:15 AM
1 votes:
False equivalency is false. But it's easy to pull the wool over some people's eyes.
2012-07-15 12:52:04 AM
1 votes:
No.
2012-07-15 12:49:40 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Bontesla: The author is an idiot.

The author is Erick Erickson. I didn't realize it needed to be actually said he was an idiot. I thought this was one of those universally known things by now.

Also, if this is the best they have as a defense against Romney definitively lying about Bain, then I'm shocked. The RNC usually manages something better than this.


I no longer take obvious facts for granted.
2012-07-15 12:49:07 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Also, auto-green when the queue is empty? I wasn't aware the Admins had just given up hiding that they'll green almost anything that gets posted to a GOP blog.


But see, you have to link to GOP shills because otherwise you'll be accused of bias!
 
Displayed 213 of 213 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report