Despite Facts... Obama continues to lie

General Buck Turgidson said:
Rmoney went on a media blitz last Friday. Show me one single unequivocal statement from him that he did not participate in any of the activities of Bain from February 1999 onward. I'll wait.

Also, too, I think it's awesome that you call me a hack and apologist as you rely on a piece by a paid hack and apologist. Too funny.
Click to expand...

So a man who advised both Reagan and Clinton is a hack?

So you will continue to ignore everything presented. Understood. Your hack status is confirmed.
 
The fact is that Romney steadfastly said he had nothing to do with Bain after 1999, yet he was CEO, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Then he said it was just paperwork, then documents showed up with his signature on them, then other disculsure filings and applications showed up with his signature... then..... he claimed he retired retroactivly.

How can you honestly deny that?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Also, too, the idea that the management structure was too complex to unwind on quick notice in 1999 is bullshit. Romney kept his foot in the door and didn't decide to actually leave until 2001.
Click to expand...

Kept his foot in the door does not mean he was active in running the firm or its investment decisions. That is the point Dung. Did he or did he not participate in those decisions. Everything shows he did not. The prospectus as Fortune reported did not show Romney as someone that would be running the money or making decisions. They would have been fucked if he were and it was not disclosed in the new round of funding. They listed 18 different people... Romney was not one of them. Period. Unequivocal. He was not active.
 
Id love that job, Chairman and CEO without doing any work.

Average Americans dont have that oppertunity!
 
Jarod said:
The fact is that Romney steadfastly said he had nothing to do with Bain after 1999, yet he was CEO, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Then he said it was just paperwork, then documents showed up with his signature on them, then other disculsure filings and applications showed up with his signature... then..... he claimed he retired retroactivly.

How can you honestly deny that?
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken but I don't think he ever said the bolder part above.
 
Superfreak said:
Kept his foot in the door does not mean he was active in running the firm or its investment decisions. That is the point Dung. Did he or did he not participate in those decisions. Everything shows he did not. The prospectus as Fortune reported did not show Romney as someone that would be running the money or making decisions. They would have been fucked if he were and it was not disclosed in the new round of funding. They listed 18 different people... Romney was not one of them. Period. Unequivocal. He was not active.
Click to expand...

(1) I did not offer that tidbit to say that Romney was or was not involved in Bain, but to counter the bullshit notion that Romeny was listed on regulatory filings as sole shareholder, chairman of the board, president and ceo because it was just so danged complex to untangle. That's just not true and anyone offering up that bullshit is a liar, David Gergen included.

Actually, at best for Romeny, everything shows that maybe he did and maybe he didn't. And Romney won't say one way or the other, which is particularly telling.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Yes, he is.

Show me one single quote from Rmoney unequivocally stating that he did nothing for Bain from February 1999 until his "retroactive retirement" in 2002.
Click to expand...

LMAO... ok hack... do you not see the difference... Saying unequivocally that he 'did nothing for Bain'... you hack... ROFLMAO...

He did not run the money. That is clear. That is what Romney has stated all along. He did not make the decisions on investments... the prospectus shows that is correct.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
(1) I did not offer that tidbit to say that Romney was or was not involved in Bain, but to counter the bullshit notion that Romeny was listed on regulatory filings as sole shareholder, chairman of the board, president and ceo because it was just so danged complex to untangle. That's just not true and anyone offering up that bullshit is a liar, David Gergen included.
Click to expand...

Which, had you read the article, you would know that is not what Gergen is stating you unbelievable hack.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
What content is there, SF
Click to expand...

There is some content there. All the usual defense of Bain. Funny how SF totally ignored my post, huh?

Jarod said:
Id love that job, Chairman and CEO without doing any work.

Average Americans dont have that oppertunity!
Click to expand...

Are you saying he was receiving corporate welfare? *shudder*

leaningright said:
I could be mistaken but I don't think he ever said the bolder part above.
Click to expand...

No. His defenders are, though.
 
Howey said:
There is some content there. All the usual defense of Bain. Funny how SF totally ignored my post, huh?
Click to expand...
]

didn't ignore it little one... just didn't see it.

The OP says Obama continues to lie, because the facts do not support the bullshit he continues to put forth. He is deliberately misleading the public. That is lying.
 
ya know, for a group of liberals who have publicly said that they are disappointed in Obama over his war on drugs and marijuana policy and therefore will not be voting for him this election, they are certainly spending an inordinate amount of energy defending him and attacking his opponent. why is that? could it be that when november actually rolls around, they will not find the courage to vote for a 3rd party candidate after all?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ya know, for a group of liberals who have publicly said that they are disappointed in Obama over his war on drugs and marijuana policy and therefore will not be voting for him this election
Click to expand...

Who? Not me.

I'm not a one-issue person and I'm pretty sure most liberals aren't. I frequently expressed my dispeasure with some of Obama's policies on my forum, particularly his early DADT stand, yet continued to support him.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ya know, for a group of liberals who have publicly said that they are disappointed in Obama over his war on drugs and marijuana policy and therefore will not be voting for him this election, they are certainly spending an inordinate amount of energy defending him and attacking his opponent. why is that? could it be that when november actually rolls around, they will not find the courage to vote for a 3rd party candidate after all?
Click to expand...

Other than onceler who said they weren't voting for him? Anyone on this thread?

Ironically, superfreak says he is voting for johnson but spends a lot of time and energy defending Romney and attacking his opponent. Like he did in this thread. But I don't expect that to bother you. Do you know why?
 
Darla said:
Other than onceler who said they weren't voting for him? Anyone on this thread?

Ironically, superfreak says he is voting for johnson but spends a lot of time and energy defending Romney and attacking his opponent. Like he did in this thread. But I don't expect that to bother you. Do you know why?
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm not voting for him either. I'm a Johnson supporter.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
What is OWEbama hiding by not releasing his transcripts? He claims he is smart enough for the job, but the only way we will know is by releasing his transcripts. I guess he is hiding Ds and his affirmative action pedigree. Or maybe he failed many courses. We just won't know unless he releases it
Click to expand...

Gee, Alias. Sounds like Obama's not your man. You better not vote for him.
 
I love how "facts" means "things anonymous sources that were business partners of Mitt Rmoney tell David Gergen, who also is a former business partner of Mitt Rmoeny."
 
Darla said:
Other than onceler who said they weren't voting for him? Anyone on this thread?

Ironically, superfreak says he is voting for johnson but spends a lot of time and energy defending Romney and attacking his opponent. Like he did in this thread. But I don't expect that to bother you. Do you know why?
Click to expand...

Oh, so if we support Johnson we are not allowed to call out Obama for lying about Romney? Sorry, I didn't get that memo.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I love how "facts" means "things anonymous sources that were business partners of Mitt Rmoney tell David Gergen, who also is a former business partner of Mitt Rmoeny."
Click to expand...

NY Times....
Fact Check
Fortune
Filing for new round of funding

None of which equals 'business partners of Romney' you pathetic little hack. Let me guess... you just missed those parts of the article?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top