@[338]"There's nothing unusual about sliding up and down within the margin of error. This is one of things that drives Chris W. and me (poll junkies, who love this stuff) crazy about O's numbers. He slides up and down but rarely breaks his ceiling, no matter what he does (gay rights; immigration; CrapCare; etc.) which is 48%/49%, or dips below around 44%. And on the rare occasions that he hits 50%, he never stays there. And he doesn't even get traditional bumps for his "victories." So that suggests one of two things: There's either something wrong with the polling orgs or we've just got an electorate that's made up its mind already, with very few undecideds out there."

Wow - solid rational, logical argument - I didn't know you had it in you ;). I totally agree, these seem like very valid observations.

@[339]
"Could his $100M campaign have actually been intended to shore up his own base, I wonder? THAT would at least make sense. But it would also mean that Team-O's internal polling is showing him in worse shape than we're seeing in the public polls."

I think you answered the reason for this spending pretty clearly yourself in post [333], quoting you again: "you'd think some strategist over at Team-O would have had the good sense to focus-group these ideas BEFORE blowing through $100M"

I'd guess they have been lining up tonnes of new attacks and are polling to see which will be their favoured ones...

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....

Wow, things are even worse than I thought. They ARE doing polling, and a whole lot of it, and they STILL blew $100K on that campaign:

Obama Campaign Spends More than $2.6 Million for Polling—in June
Campaign disclosure forms for Obama for America, President Obama's reelection team, reveal a heavy emphasis on public opinion polling. According to the forms, in the month of June alone, Obama for America spent a whopping $2,639,265.72 on polling.

This appears to be a record this election cycle. And it does not include money spent on polling by the Democratic party in the month of June.... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-spends-more-26-million-polling-june_648846.html

Could his $100M campaign have actually been intended to shore up his own base, I wonder? THAT would at least make sense. But it would also mean that Team-O's internal polling is showing him in worse shape than we're seeing in the public polls.

And he's also burning through his war chest. Check out the end of that article:

Meanwhile, looking at the June numbers, the AP reports, "President Barack Obama's re-election campaign spent more than it collected in June."

There's nothing unusual about sliding up and down within the margin of error. This is one of things that drives Chris W. and me (poll junkies, who love this stuff) crazy about O's numbers. He slides up and down but rarely breaks his ceiling, no matter what he does (gay rights; immigration; CrapCare; etc.) which is 48%/49%, or dips below around 44%. And on the rare occasions that he hits 50%, he never stays there. And he doesn't even get traditional bumps for his "victories." So that suggests one of two things: There's either something wrong with the polling orgs or we've just got an electorate that's made up its mind already, with very few undecideds out there.

But putting the national polls aside, I'd be a tad concerned about the state polls, if I were Team-O. He's losing traction in places he had won by a landslide in 2008; plus, he just took a hit in Virginia, which threw that rather important state into a dead heat. This is not exactly the shape the incumbent wants to be in, four months out from the election — not to mention, on the heels of a $100M anti-competitor campaign.

Michale "I said a couple weeks ago that the Bain attacks would go nowhere.. "

Gallup poll shows Romney and Obama neck and neck going into July, look what happens in July: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Every other poll shows the same pattern. Magically during July something appears to have happened to give Obama a 2-4pt (depending on poll) shot in the arm.

And this is during the summer months when the jobs numbers are WEAKEST too.

Going to be a long autumn/winter for Romney...

But there was no illegality, so what, pray tell, is the Left babbling about? There isn't even an allegation of illegality. There isn't even an SEC document to be looked at. There is absolutely nothing here but a steaming load of spin, and THIS is how O plans on winning in November???

315 Comments? Really? Birtherism? Racism?

Sigh.

OK, guys, I'm going to call a halt here. I'll turn off the thread if you don't settle down, as we're so far off the thread it's not even six degrees from Kevin Bacon anymore.

Michale -

You are disproving your own argument. If Obama isn't "intelligent" then how did he mastermind the fake birth certificate, convince dozens of people (some Republican officeholders, I believe) to lie for him in a giant conspiracy, and plot his own election to the presidency from his cradle? Or, perhaps, build a time machine and go back in time to insert notices in contemporary Hawaiian papers?

ANY answer you give to that question other than "Birtherism is nonsense" disproves your other point, because if it were true, then Obama would be an evil genius.

Seriously, though, I don't want to hear the answer to that question. That horse just ain't dead, it has fully decomposed.

michty6 -

OK, you're new here, so I'll try to clarify things a bit. Michale lives to argue with Lefties. He might not admit it, but it is his one true joy in life (other than his fine wife, who must put up with a bazillion times more stress than he ever causes here).

He will take outrageous positions just to get under your skin. It's a given.

Now, I understand perfectly what you're saying. The only presidential candidate (as far as I know) in ALL of US history who is asked to prove his Americanness by showing the world his birth certificate happens to be black. That's probably no accident, to put it mildly, when you consider just two Republicans who have run in my lifetime, one of whom was born outside any US State, and one of whom was actually born in Mexico (John McCain and George Romney). The question briefly came up for both of them. In McCain's place, Congress agreed -- during the election, mind you -- that McCain was OK to serve. Romney (elder) is a more interesting case, because his ancestors fled the US to avoid US law. But because George's parents (Mitt's grandparents) were US citizens, he was deemed to be a "natural born" citizen as well. The term has never been legally defined in a court of law. By US law, you are automatically a US citizen if ONE parent is also a US citizen NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH YOU WERE BORN. So even if the birthers were right IT WOULD NOT MATTER because his mom was a US Citizen -- same as George Romney's. Making both of them "natural born."

And yet, Obama's the only one who bred conspiracy theories. So I do understand perfectly what you're saying.

But leaping from there to charges of racism is a bigger leap, and one that crosses the line into ad hominem attack. So, you've been warned.

So, to everyone -

Take a deep breath. Calm down. Don't make me start turning off comment threads -- I've never had to do so before, so let's all remember to respect each other's opinions a bit more.

Michale, don't play so innocent. You know full well that if you make a completely unsubstantiated charge that affirmative action helped out Obama because he's just so stupid, that people are (1) going to think you're stupid yourself, and (2) going to respond to the racial component of what you are saying (yes, "affirmative action" has a racial component... duh). I know the right has almost perfected the whole "playing the reverse racism card" but we all know that's not who you really are.

michty6 -

You're never going to get the "last word" with Michale. I don't know that it's ever happened (anyone? anyone remember achieving this feat?) here. The best you can hope for is to get to the point where you just dismiss him and refuse to rise to his taunts. Don't worry, while Michale often posts the most comments, most readers of this blog are actually seeing things from your point of view. We've just all learned the point to start ignoring Michale, that's all.

OK, that's it, I've got to write today's column. Play nice, everyone.

-CW

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....

Obama had to ignore my advice and go spend $100 million...

That would have bought me a LOT of beer.. :D

I get the funny feeling that O's surrounded by wall-to-wall liberals, all firmly convinced that the majority of Americans quite naturally shares their class-warfare, business-bashing, wealth-redistribution, government-dependency mindset.

Yep.. It's an echo chamber.. And anyone who dares speak out and say, "Ya know, people.. I think we might be frak'in things up.." well.. You know what happens to THEM! The MSM/Journo's are sic'ed on them....

Michale.....

For a media effort of that magnitude, you'd think some strategist over at Team-O would have had the good sense to focus-group these ideas BEFORE blowing through $100M. A disaster-check focus group costs a whole helluva lot less than a month's-long campaign across multiple states. Hell, an overnight internal POLL would've told them that this tactic wasn't gonna cut through. I get the funny feeling that O's surrounded by wall-to-wall liberals, all firmly convinced that the majority of Americans quite naturally shares their class-warfare, business-bashing, wealth-redistribution, government-dependency mindset. It's like an impossible notion, to Team-O, that this might not go over well. Same exact blunder that went on with CrapCare, with O completely ignoring what the American people were ACTUALLY thinking and saying, secure in the belief that everyone would quite naturally come around to seeing things their way. They never seem to learn from their past mistakes.

Obama says that American entrepreneurs do not create their businesses.. That they need to share their success with the guys who built the roads and the guys who built the bridges and the guys who clean the toilets...

If we accept that as true (which we MUST or else we get accused of being racist) then it seems to me that Romney shouldn't take ALL the blame for Bain outsourcing jobs...

Let's haul in the guys who built the roads and the guys who built the bridges and the guys who clean the toilets before the court of public opinion and shame them for allowing BAIN to outsource jobs..

What ya'all say!?? Who'se with me!!!??? :D

As an aside...

THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN POSTS!!!????

CW, that has GOT to be some kind of record!!!! :D

Michale.....

Wow...

Yer pretty harsh...

So, let's get to the question I asked last..

Are the people who built the roads and bridges to Bain responsible for Bain outsourcing jobs???

Obama said they are, but I just wanted to run that by you....

Michale.....

YES! LOL. 10000000000% YES!! He was STILL the CEO and signed all their filings.
He went to their AGM (CEO's are required to)!
He signed off all their papers at the AGM!
He gave a big speech at the AGM!
All of this on a leave of absence because HE WAS STILL CEO SO STILL RESPONSIBLE!

Maybe now you'll finally get how it works? (Again I'm probably being too naive)

He took a leave of absence a year or so prior...

Does that mean Jobs was responsible for everything that Apple did after he left???

Well, probably not, because Obama clearly said that Jobs really didn't build Apple into the huge world-wide conglomerate it became..

They guys who pave the road helped Jobs, so they should get stock in APPLE, right???

Such a target-rich environment.. :D

Which brings up ANOTHER interesting question..

Why aren't the people who built the roads and bridges to BAIN being blamed for Bain's outsourcing????

Michale.....

Michale....

Read my posts in 302-303 LD. This is what arguing with people who don't listen is like. They argue on, when you disprove their views they change the subject and then come back to their original points completely ignoring the fact that you've already addressed them!

A. BIRTH CERTIFICATE
- I have shown you every 'fact' you posted about the birth certificate was wrong
- I have shown you that fact-check, which in posts [18] and [20] was your best friend, has disproven your birth certificate theory many times. All of a sudden you went silent about fact check.
- I have shown you that if you correctly apply Occam's Razor, the conclusion is obvious. All of a sudden Occam's Razor wasn't your friend anymore.
- You have presented NOTHING, absolutely NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE that (i) this birth certificate is a fake or (ii) he was born somewhere else.
- There are no 'problems' with his birth certificates. These were invented by YOU and other conspiracy nuts!

B. TRANSPARENCY
- This is an easy no brainer. All I need to do is repeat AGAIN something I have repeated before:
Tax Records:
- Obama 12 years (in full)
- Romney 1 year (not full)

School Records
- Obama not released
- Romney not released

Birth Certificate
- Obama released (i) certificate of live birth and (ii) long form birth certificate
- Romney released only (i) certificate of live birth

- Obama is more transparent than Romney. Fact. Everytime I post this you ignore it, I expect no different this time.

C. BAIN
There are two lines of argument:
(i) Is Romney Responsible
- Both LD and I 100% agree yes, as CEO he is not just responsible but legally responsible.
- RE[327] Chris "Mmm, no one at Bain did do anything illegal, michty." This is my point! If they HAD done something illegal Romney would be 100000% responsible. There is absolutely not even any question, his name is on the SEC filings = he is responsible. That is how business works! This is why the CEO OF ENRON WENT TO JAIL not the managers or managing directors. HIS NAME was on the paperwork=HE IS RESPONSIBLE.

(ii) Are The Attacks Successful
- In this line I will say at least Michale and Chris have put up some reasonable arguments (!). There is absolutely a case to be made that they aren't being successful and you have made this case using solid facts, reason and logic (!!).
- I still believe it is not the case but this is by no means conclusive and definitely open for debate (unlike all the previous issues I mentioned which are much more straight foward).

If you wish to make any further comments on (C) (ii) I am happy to contribute. There is good debate to be had there.

Any other comments on any of the other ones I am out and done with. These are simple issues where there is no debate - you are both just repeating yourself over and over again living in your own fantasy world, ignoring all evidence against you...

Mmm, no one at Bain did do anything illegal, michty.

I bet Obama wishes they would have realized that before they blew thru 100 cool million bucks... :D

Obama got NO bang for a whole buttload of bucks...

Michale

IOW, there's been no actual allegation made, and no SEC filing (or any other paperwork) to review, and it's finally beginning to occur to you that you've been spending all this time doing nothing but peddling spin.

Chris1962 [305],

Been there, done that.

Actually, I posted #305..

This is why it's always better to quote what you are responding to, rather than throw up a bunch of numbers.

As to the point, I understand. The One can do no wrong...

Many felt the same way about Bush, so I guess you are in ... "good"??? Well, you have company anyways.. :D

Michale.....

Been there, done that.

Go back to [61] and continue on without me. I've got better things to do.

And THAT is exactly my point. Many documents across a broad span of Obama's life and the world, all have problems..

Like I said, either Obama is the unluckiest guy in the whole universe when it comes to his paper trail, or something else is going on...

Occam's Razor clearly indicates that the latter is the most likely and logical of possibilities...

Michale.....

2. The mistakes in Obama's birth certificate mean that Obama deliberately released a fake birth certificate

Putting aside that there are people in this world who really, truly, actually do falsify documents for self-serving reasons, you're casually neglecting to factor in that other documents show discrepancies, as well, michty. That's what's raising the questions. Oh, but you've decided to neatly omit that part of it, haven't you? I'm guessing it's because too many discrepancie across a NUMBER of documents makes it a little more difficult to explain away.

Mmm, no. If you're a CEO "on paper," and you file with the SEC, affirming that you are, indeed, the CEO, that's not a felony. That's the God's-honest truth.

But, hey, let's just cut to the chase and have a look at the paperwork, shall we, Lew? Put the SEC paperwork up and let's have a look at it, k? Oh, what's that? There is no paperwork to review? Nobody's seen any SEC filing? This is all assumption and speculation on the part of Team-O — otherwise known as spin?

You folks on the Left seriously need to learn how to distinguish pure spin (he MIGHT be; he COULD be; he MAY be; IF he did; IF he didn't) from statements of fact. Nobody from Team-O has even levied an actual allegation that a felony had been committed. There's no evidence. No paperwork to point to. Just plain old-fashioned spin. And here you are, Day Three, still struggling to get some meat to stick to the skeleton. There's no meat, Lew. A legal eagle such as yourself might've notice that by now.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

Besides, we're not JUST talking about the Birth Certificate.

There are discrepancies all up and down Obama's paper trail..

His Selective Service card is a forgery.

He has a Connecticut based SSN, even though he has absolutely NO connection with the state.

His time at Columbia is questionable

and so on and so on and so on..

So, YOU are claiming that ALL of these are the result of human error...

If this is true, then Obama must be the most unluckiest guy in the history of unlucky guys..

Seriously, dood. You don't HONESTLY believe that all of Obama's paper trail is on the up and up, do you???

You sound like a religious fanatic who won't entertain even the THOUGHT that there is no god.. (which there isn't by the bi)..

Political fanatics are just as much a pain in the ass as religious fanatics are...

Thank the gods, that I don't have to mess with any of that crap.. Comes from being an NPA :D

Michale....

Don't you see that the assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FAKE always carries MORE ASSUMPTIONS than the plain assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS REAL!?!? This is Occam's Razor being applied to the problem. THINK ABOUT IT!

I'll show you. Here is where the assumptions lie:

1. Birth certificate is real:
-Obama is American

2. Birth certificate is fake:
- Obama is not American
- Obama lied for years
- Obama put out two fake birth certificates
- Many other things Obama says might not be true
- The Hawaiian DOH lied
- Many Doctors, Nurses etc lied
- Hawaiian State representatives lied
- Massive Government cover up and conspiracy etc etc etc.

I made it even easier for you so that this time you can actually count the assumptions!

Employing the precepts of Occam's Razor, it's clear that B is the simplest and most logical explanation..
"

Good job. We might make a reasonable person out of you yet!

Let's take your premise as you applied it. Let's say I agree that using Occam's Razor you have established that there probably are mistakes in Obama's paperwork (I don't agree but we'll go with it). Let's apply Occam's Razor again:

1. The mistakes in Obama's paperwork are human errors which are very common in hospital paperwork.

2. The mistakes in Obama's birth certificate mean that Obama deliberately released a fake birth certificate, made up a bunch of stuff on it, was not born in America, lied to everyone about the birth certificate, got away for it for decades, is attempting to cover it up and is part of a massive Government evil conspiracy by secret Kenyan agents to install a Kenyan as President (ok I don't know what you think the motive is, since there isn't really one, but let's go with this lol)...

Don't you see that the assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FAKE always carried MORE ASSUMPTIONS than the plain assumption that THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS REAL!?!? This is Occam's Razor being applied to the problem. THINK ABOUT IT!

Err, if I were to hand you a twenty-dollar bill that appeared to feautre many discrepancies, typos and mistakes, the assumption would be that I had handed you a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill.

Either you guys can't count (could be true) or can't read (also could be true) or can't understand simple concepts (definitely true) or are completely blinded by your own ignorance, bias and conspiracy world that you can't see how nonsensical your interpretation is (absolutely, definitely true).

You're forgetting the third option, michty: maybe you simply can't distinguish between your own personal opinions and facts and, therefore, forever find yourself beating your head against the wall whenever anyone doesn't accept your opinion as actual, factual, gospel truth.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if you actually believed all of these things...

"The American people have spoken"?! Its November already? The election's over? Who won? How come no one told me?!

The American people have spoken insofar as the importance of the Romney/Bain connection..

They really don't give a rat's ass....

The only people who care are the Hysterical Left and they are going to vote for Obama anyways...

Hell, Obama could certify that he is a card-carrying agent of Iran, the full Osama Bin Laden reincarnated and the Hysterical Left would STILL vote for him...

Michale.....

Looks like I left a dangling marsupial there...

What I am saying is that, by the principle of Occam's Razor, which is more likely??

1. That all the multitude of errors in ALL of Obama's paperwork are the result of mis-speaks, typos, errors, mis-prints, and all the other garbage the Left uses to cover their lord and master..

OR

B. There is something wrong with Obama's paperwork...

Employing the precepts of Occam's Razor, it's clear that B is the simplest and most logical explanation...

Michale.....

"The American people have spoken"?! Its November already? The election's over? Who won? How come no one told me?!

"I never claimed Obama wasn't an American"

Lol what? So what we arguing about then. Debate over. Obama is American. Thank you for finally agreeing.

For the last time. The whole point of filing with the SEC is to inform the government of who is actually managing the company. If you are only CEO "on paper" and you file with the SEC you have committed a felony. Its the law. The government doesn't care what names or titles you've got on your organizational chart, they want to know who is responsible for managing the corporation.

We're not saying you can't be CEO on paper only. We're saying its illegal.

I never claimed Obama wasn't an American..

Maybe you should pay closer attention to the discussion...

All I have said is that there are inconsistencies with so much of Obama's paper trail that it is, based on the principle of Occam's Razor, completely impossible that it's ALL innocent mistakes, typos, mis-recollections, mis-prints and all the other garbage that the Left uses to cover for their lord and master...

THAT conclusion is fully and completely consistent with Occam's Razor...

are completely blinded by your own ignorance, bias and conspiracy world that you can't see how nonsensical your interpretation is (absolutely, definitely true).

It's been my experience that those who are truly blinded by ignorance (or, in this case, political ideology) always try to project their own failings onto others. :D

Michale.....

Either you guys can't count (could be true) or can't read (also could be true) or can't understand simple concepts (definitely true) or are completely blinded by your own ignorance, bias and conspiracy world that you can't see how nonsensical your interpretation is (absolutely, definitely true).

"It's your OPINION that Occam's Razor was used in the opposite manner in which it was intended.. You provide NO supporting facts that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion..."

I mean I assumed when you brought up Occam's Razor that you knew what it means.

The definition from wikipedia:
"It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions." (Bold added for emphasis)

Ok which hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions:

1. Obama released two American birth certificates. Therefore Obama is an American.
2. Obama released two American birth certificates. But (and I quote you) it has "MANY discrepancies, typos, mistakes and misunderstandings when it comes to his paper trail." Furthermore when you consider "the totality of Obama's paper trail... School records... BC... Selective Service card... ALL of that and ALL of the baggage that goes along with that..." he is not an American.

I mean either you don't know the meaning of the phrase 'fewest assumptions' (possible) or you don't know how to count (clue: if you don't want to count you can consider that one of these statements has 1 assumption, one has more than 1) or once more you are completely blinded by your own crazy views that you can't even apply a simple concept like Occam's Razor correctly (I'd go with the latter as my guess, possibly all these reasons though).

It is a complete no-brainer but you will not be able to see this since you can not see reasonableness, logic, fact or ANYTHING if it goes against your conspiracy-views of the world...

And this has NOTHING TO DO WITH BAIN. Everytime you are losing an argument you just flip it to another argument, then when you're losing that argument you flip it back again lol - like I pointed out in [302-303].

It's your OPINION that Occam's Razor was used in the opposite manner in which it was intended..

It's always the same problem when conversing with the Left (or at least the vast majority of them): They convince themselves that their personal opinions are one and the same with fact. And anyone who disagrees with the way they personally view it is factually incorrect. LOL. They don't seem to have a clue that they're merely stating an opinion. And then it escalates to the point of "banging their head against the wall" and communicating in all-caps, mystified that the other person "can't understand" what's being said. It's like watching a bad sit-com.

Yeah, that sure would explain why Team-O is out there saying the Romney may have committed a felony, michty. Maybe you should stop banging your head against that wall, since it's affecting your ability to think clearly. Oh, and you might try learning how and why "spin" is worded, and how to distinguish it from actual fact. That way, you won't have to keep getting instantaneously suckered into it, and caught up in your own underwear trying to play the role of an expert legal eagle.

NO IT DOES NOT. WHEN YOU SIGN SEC FILINGS YOU ARE SIGNING LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT CARRY LEGAL AND FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES.

Psssstttt... When Romney signed the papers, he was really and truly the CEO/founder/owner. No crime was committed.

This is not personal opinion, there are LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OUTLINED IN THE LAW.

Ah, there's that amorphous use of "responsiblity" again. Look, it's painfully obvious that you're trying to declare that a CEO on a leave of absence, who has turned decision-making and management "responsibilities" over to others, is nevertheless "responsible" for their decisions. Only their decisions didn't involve anything illegal, immoral, unethical, sneaky, underhanded, or anything else. So there was never any "there" there, to begin with, michty. You've been desperately trying to give legs to Team-O's spin effort — and not even a good spin effort, as spin goes, since it was instantly and completely blown out of water by newspapers/factchekers. And the reeason you continue to fail miserably is because an illegality never occurred. A CEO gave his managing directors the freedom to grow the company in ways that they saw fit, in this global economy and marketplace, and they did. Period. And all without Romney's input or presence. That's all there is to this ridiculous story, and all there ever will be — particularly now that this entire spin effort has failed to resonate with the American people. So give the Perry Mason routine a rest.

Yes, it is. But I'm hoping you catch up soon... :D

Let's face it.. All you have given is your opinion...

It's your OPINION that Occam's Razor was used in the opposite manner in which it was intended.. You provide NO supporting facts that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion...

This is all fun and all, but let's face the facts...

It's COMPLETELY irrelevant...

The ONLY point that matters is the fact that the American people DON'T CARE about Bain.... Obama spent ONE MILLION DOLLARS to try and show the American people that Romney is Satan-incarnate and HE FAILED...

The American people have spoken...

Time to move on...

Michale.....

You:Well Occam's Razor (A) says this is true (B)
Me:Well actually you pretty much applied Occam's Razor in the exact opposite way it was intended to be applied (A). Occam's Razor if applied properly completely kills your argument and the correct answer is... (C)
You: Well that doesn't take away from the fact that the Bain attacks are going nowhere (D)

It's like debating a 5 year old.

You:Well what about A and B, they prove C is right.
Everyone else:Actually A, and B are wrong thus C is wrong.
You:Well what about D and E proving F is right!
Everyone else:Well you're on the right lines but D and E are just speculation, not fact so that doesn't prove anything about F.
You:Well what about A and B proving C is right!
Everyone else:Huh? Haven't we just discussed this 100 times?
You:You're just repeating yourself, silly hysterical left
Everyone else:What on earth are you talking about? *Repeats criticism of A and B*
You:Yes but what about D and E and F!
Everyone else:*BANGS HEAD AGAINST WALL* But we just discussed this are you crazy?
You:Well if you can't argue your point you lose! Also what about G and H!!
Everyone else:*Gives Up*

" And, again, you can use the word "responsibility" in any number of vague ways, and try to torture it into meaning whatever want/need it to. But it still boils down to your personal opinion/perception/characterization""

NO IT DOES NOT. WHEN YOU SIGN SEC FILINGS YOU ARE SIGNING LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT CARRY LEGAL AND FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES. This is not personal opinion, there are LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OUTLINED IN THE LAW.

Why do you think the CEO of Enron is in jail? Because the Judge had a personal opinion that the CEO carries legal responsibility for the actions of the company???? NO BECAUSE HE HAS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF HIS COMPANY

Some basics on this maybe you can try reading:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

"Have you watched Team-O very carefully qualifying their statements, e.g., Romney MAY HAVE committed a felony; he COULD HAVE committed a felony; a felony MIGHT HAVE been committed; etc. Why do you think they've been doing that, Lew?"

BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG - Head on wall.

I mean seriously.

How many times do we have to repeat THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MEANS THAT HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A FELONY, SO THEY CANNOT ACCUSE HIM OF COMMITTING A FELONY. THIS IS HOW THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WORKS.

Rove: Obama Gets Down and Dirty
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577535052152769424.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

:D

My advice to the Hysterical Left is the same as it's always been..

If you want to preach from a foundation of morals and ethics....???

Clean your own frak'in house first!

Michale.....

But it DOESN'T change the facts..

Obama's BAIN attacks are going nowhere.. Repeat **NOWHERE**

The only Americans who CARE about Romney/Bain are the Hysterical Left...

It's rather ironic though.. When Pelosi was questioned as to why she won't release HER tax returns, she quickly changed the subject and said, "...talking about the economy is more important."

Ironically enough, Pelosi hit the nail on the head..

To every American EXCEPT the Hysterical Left, the economy is more important than Romney's role in BAIN..

So, by all means. Follow Team Obama over the Bain Cliff...

Makes me no never mind..

In the end, it will only help Romney..

Michale.....

Yeah, and Romney truly, accurately retained his titled of CEO while he was on a leave of absence.

If it's not its perjury and a felony.

"If." So where's the perjury? This is the second time I've asked you. Do you realize that there isn't even an actual ALLEGATION that's been made? Have you watched Team-O very carefully qualifying their statements, e.g., Romney MAY HAVE committed a felony; he COULD HAVE committed a felony; a felony MIGHT HAVE been committed; etc. Why do you think they've been doing that, Lew? It's because words have meaning. Here's what a real, actual allegation looks like: "Romney committed a felony"; "Romney committed a crime"; "Romney violated the law." So where's so much as an actual allegation from a Team-O member, Lew? For someone who fancies himself a "business law" expert, you might take some time to study the actual words that are being stated and take note that no one from Team-O has dared to lay an actual allegation on the table. Guess why.

He said in a statement:
'I am fighting this sentence as just because I was CEO on paper does not mean I am legally 'responsible' - whatever vague thing that's supposed to mean - for the decisions made by management.

In addition to this I was retroactively retired during this period. Just because I signed all those legal documents taking responsibility for the company doesn't mean I am ACTUALLY legally responsible for the company - come on that's just liberal nonsense!'"

"Bank loses $4 billion. CEO says 'I was on holiday during the 2 weeks it happened so just because I'm the CEO on paper doesn't mean you can blame me!'"

LD please chip in :)

Lolol. I can just see the headlines tomorrow:

"Bank loses $4 billion. CEO says 'It's not my fault, I'm just the CEO on paper - that's all! I'm not legally bound!'"

"Company spills masses of oil in the North Sea. CEO says 'Nothing to do with me, uhm I retroactively retired 3 years ago'"

"Firm caught fixing LIBOR rate. CEO testifies before congress 'But CEO's are not 'responsible' for management - whatever that's supposed to mean!'"

My thoughts exactly. He has his view and facts will not change it. I give up.

You keep repeating ON PAPER as if that is supposed to mean something. When you sign an SEC filing you have to swear that what's on paper is in fact accurate and true. If it's not its perjury and a felony. There is no such thing as retroactively unsigning it. And there is no way to make it "retroactively" untrue but your swearing it was true not a lie and perjury.

Everyone with a functioning brain understands this. Which, of course, leaves you out. So we've been trying to explain it in words of one syllable that even you might understand. Clearly, however, that simply is not possible.

Not "personal opinion", business law.—But you wouldn't know anything about that—or anything else about business.

Yeah, on a leave of absense. And, no, I'm not gonna go through your cherry-picked, out-of-context single sentences, where you try to insinuate something nefarious by isolating the statement — or printing HALF a sentence, for all I know.

Do you know what 'retired' means?

Uh-huh. I even know what retiring retroactively means — or even what re-hiring retroactively means. For the most part, it has to do with contracts and monies owed, depending upon when you formally retire (or become re-hired) ON PAPER. And there's nothing illegal or nefarious or suspicious about it. Romney never denied that he retained his CEO title, or ownership, etc., while he was on a leave of absence. So his SEC submissions are perfectly legal. He said (from your own quote), "In February of 1999 I left Bain Capital and left all management authority and responsibility for the firm." And that is true. So, again, you're left with nothing but SPIN — single isolated sentences, presented with the intention of making it appear as though some kind of foul play was afoot, or a lie had been told, or a law had been broken, or a breach of ethics had occured. Except that all any of it amounts to is spin, which is put out for liberals to regurgitate, whether they even understand it or not.

And no amount of ALSO injecting personal opinions, stated as fact (e.g., Oh, well, a CEO still IS "responsible" for other people's decisions...), turns those personal opinions/characterizations into facts.

And that's all that's being done here: regurgitating spin, with no evidence of any crime, or even so much as an actual allegation of a crime; just plain old innuendo.

It cost Team-O $100M to try this tactic, and it has failed. Yet liberals are still twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to make it seem as though a CEO on a leave of absence is somehow still legally bound to be "responsible" — whatever vague thing THAT'S supposed to mean — for duties and decisions made by the managings directors. And duties/decisions that don't even amount to a crime, or anything even remotely unethical, no less.

The quotes in bold in Michty6[263]are quotes of Romney, through his spokesperson, denying that he was CEO/founder/owner during that time period.

BANG BANG BANG BANG. My head against the wall. I mean do you even read my posts?

Yellow. Monkey. Banana. HELLO. ARE YOU READING? DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS MEAN:

Romney: "I left Bain in 1999".
Romney: "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999"
Romney "I retroactively retired from Bain in 1999". Romney "I was not involved in Bain in anyway from 1999"
Romney "I was not at the helm of Bain from 1999"
Romney "In February of 1999 I left Bain Capital and left all management authority and responsibility for the firm"
Romney "After 1999 I had no responsibility or activity with the management of Bain Capital"
Romney "I left the firm in 1999"

Do you know what 'retired' means?
Have you ever heard of a retired CEO that is still CEO??
Do you think someone who says they are retired from a job but is later found to be in the job is not lying??
Do you know what 'not involved' or 'any way' means? Do you think that being CEO is being 'not involved in any way'?
Do you know what 'not at the helm' means'?
Do you know that the CEO position is considered to be 'at the helm'?
Do you know what 'management authority and responsibility means'?
Do you know what 'ALL' means?
Do you think a CEO has NO RESPONSIBILITY?
Do you think a CEO HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIVITY OF A COMPANY?
Do you think the LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT THEY DO SO DOESN'T EXIST?
Do you know what 'left' means?
Do you think that when someone says they 'left' the company but THEY ARE STILL CEO PRESIDENT AND ON THE BOD that they are lying?

Speaking of left this comments board a while ago. It's like debating a 5 year old.

Well, Chris's post is an op-ed, not a newspaper report. And I've read plenty of We, the Posters, posts, which are laden with personal interpretations and characterizations, stated in the form of fact. That doesn't make them facts. But you don't seem to discern between the two, so I'm basically talking to myself here. I keep getting responses like this:

Apparently being Founder, Owner, CEO, Only BOD member and President means you aren't 'at the helm' lol.

Does that answer my question as to whether Romney ever said that he wasn't CEO/founder/owner during that time period? No, it doesn't. Just more of your personal paraphrasing and characterizing and non-answers, signed off with an "lol," like that's supposed to lend some kind of legitimacy to your non-answer.

So would you like to answer the question? If so, answer the question.

It's simply impossible to follow your responses if you don't quote what your responding to...

Laugh it up all you want.. The FACTS will win out...

And, when we have President Elect Romney on 7 Nov 2012, the one who laughs last laughs best.. :D

Michale.....

Michale - if you want to bet something on it I could prove quite easily I am more neutral than you. Care to make a wager?

OMG. AMAZING. I love how you completely mis-apply Occam's Razor. You do know what this is right? HAHAHAHAH OMG I am literally laughing out loud.

Let me correctly apply Occam's Razor for you:
Obama has an American birth certificate. Therefore he was born in America.

Hahaha I can't believe you call looking at all the OBSCURE information 'Occam's Razor' that is amazing. Lolololol.

Occam's Razor = The simplest explanation is probably correct.
Your interpretation = The most complex and absurd explanation is probably correct.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one.

But if you REALLY want to correctly apply Occam's Razor I will agree. Because then your argument is over.

"The prevailing theory amongst the Left is that Romney is hiding something because he won't release a decade worth of tax records.."

To quote myself from the other thread "I don't say
'Romney is not releasing his tax returns, therefore he must be hiding something!' (like you and Mr Michale like to)

I say 'Romney is failing to follow the precedent set by his own father, followed by Obama and is therefore being less transparent on this. The fact he is refusing to do something that the other candidate has done, as started by his father, badly damages his character.'
This is based on facts, not speculation."

You again "I, on the other hand, *AM* completely neutral.. I expect the same amount of transparency from Obama that I expect from Romney...".

Nope. Just SO SO SO SO WRONG. Do I really have to quote [198] and [202] AGAIN to show you how Obama is more transparent? I mean I am really beating my head against the wall now.

You're kidding right? I mean do you even read any of the posts? Do you know why this entire article and all these comments exist? Did you read the article??

Here are some quotes from the Romney campaign themselves:

"Romney retroactively retired from Bain in 1999" - this is the funniest on. I wish I could do whatever I wanted and then later say 'oh I was retroactively retired then'.

"Your article on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain asserts that Mitt Romney remained “at the helm” of Bain Capital beyond his retirement from the firm in February of 1999. This is inaccurate"

Apparently being Founder, Owner, CEO, Only BOD member and President means you aren't 'at the helm' lol.

This is from the DISCLOSURE FORM WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING! You know the one where we have had to remind you about the statute of limitations several times? I have added bold for reference:

"Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way"

So apparently being Founder, Owner, CEO, Only BOD member, President and signing this in SEC filings is equatable to not being involved in 'any way' lol.

Please don't say stuff like that when I am downing a beer.. Now I got stuff all over my monitor!! :D

You are clearly not neutral when it comes to Obama..

You ignore any FACTS that puts Obama into a bad light...

Now, I grant you that there are other possibilities to explain the discrepancies in Obama's BC....

But, when one employs Occam's Razor, it all becomes clear..

Are we to believe that Obama is the unluckiest guy in the entire universe that he would have SO MANY discrepancies, typos, mistakes and mis understandings when it comes to his paper trail??

Or... Is it MORE likely that something is amiss...

When you take into account the totality of Obama's paper trail... School records... BC... Selective Service card... ALL of that and ALL of the baggage that goes along with that...

Well, what's more logical??

That it's ALL random coincidences, innocent typos etc etc etc???

Or that there is something amiss that Obama doesn't want the American people to learn..

The prevailing theory amongst the Left is that Romney is hiding something because he won't release a decade worth of tax records...

Why doesn't that theory apply to Obama??? Since Obama won't release school records, why isn't it logical to think that OBAMA is hiding something??

You think you're are neutral?? Until you can apply the SAME standard to BOTH candidates, you are not neutral..

I, on the other hand, *AM* completely neutral.. I expect the same amount of transparency from Obama that I expect from Romney...

THAT's being neutral...

As far as the criticism goes, oh yea.. It's not a problem. I sometimes get passionate, but I try not to take myself (or anyone else) too seriously.. Sometimes it's a chore to keep that in mind, but then usually David or Kevin or Liz or CB or CW will say something hilarious and I forget about being offended. :D

It's been said many times before and it's the gods' honest truth..

Anyone here could sit down with any other one, enjoy a beer, shoot the shit and have a helluva time.. And then, the next day, be right back in here, jumping into the fray...

ChrisW - I am new to the site and I was trying to post a large post. I didn't realise (until I read the info on your site) that the comments board doesn't like links. Also it wasn't saying 'your comment is awaiting moderation' the comment just disappeared! Eventually I discovered the issue was one link that your board just does not like! There are none of my comments need saving though, so feel free to just delete them all thanks.

I had that happen once or twice today myself. No MODERATION notice, just NO COMMENT...

Michale.....

You can make it really simple by answering my question instead of dancing around it. I'm not interested in wasting my time arguing about something that amounts to nothing more than your personal interpretation/characterization, stated in the form of unequivocal fact. So here's my very simple question once again: Did Romney claim that wasn't the CEO/owner/founder during that time period? The answer is no. He never made that claim.

Yes I noticed, I would say he looks at facts and logic in a different way. He finds obscure hypothesises (like on Fox/other right wing crazy sites) then finds facts to support them and, even when you show him BOTH the hypothesis AND the facts are wrong, vehemently defends them to the death. But this pretty much all birthers in a nut-shell!

To begin with when I posted on here I thought Michale was pretty neutral (and he sold himself this way) but this is clearly not the case. It's funny because I am absolutely a neutral in this.

I absolutely agree on one thing though - Michale you handle criticism very well. I sometimes feel as I have been coming across too harsh (it's hard not to when you advocate such crazy beliefs) but you've taken it well I'll grant you that.

@[272]
ChrisW - I am new to the site and I was trying to post a large post. I didn't realise (until I read the info on your site) that the comments board doesn't like links. Also it wasn't saying 'your comment is awaiting moderation' the comment just disappeared! Eventually I discovered the issue was one link that your board just does not like! There are none of my comments need saving though, so feel free to just delete them all thanks.

Then again, their being a politician is reason to suspect they're lying!

Too true.

OK, folks, don't know what happened, but the spam filter was getting a bit overexcited. Mostly on posts by Chris1962 and michty6, but also on others.

I now have 26 messages that were caught be the spam filter, that I could now make live. Only problem - if I do that, they get interthreaded above where they were originally posted, and that blows away the numbering system (everyone's comment numbers would adjust, to put it another way). Since this is a very long thread, and lots of folks are referencing these numbers, this might lead to confusion galore.

So, if there is any particular comment you'd like me to rescue, let me know and maybe I'll paste it in as a new comment to preserve the numbering.

michty6 (and to other new posters) -

I've been busy, I usually welcome new people to the site. One of the things I say in my normal welcome message is that posting multiple links per comment always gets you stuck in the moderation or spam queues. The best way around this is to only post one link per comment.

OK, sorry for the snafu everyone. Let's see if things technically improve in the next few hours...

-CW

Michale and I are old acquaintances. He's more fanatically obsessed (he'd probably say passionately committed) than a Birther. He's come to hate Obama and will champion anything that disparages him. Outside of his obsession (and before it) he displays admirable intelligence.—Even better, he can take criticism as well as dish it out.

(1) Romney was the founder, owner, CEO (only BOD member) and President of Bain - fact.
(2) Romney signed SEC filings stating the above was true from 1999-2002 - fact.
(3) Romney is now claiming that number (1) is not true for the period 1999-2002, despite number (2) confirming it - fact.
(4) Every single business that is a privately listed has a BOD which is responsible for the management of that business - fact.
(5) 1 + 2 + 4 = Romney is responsible for the management of Bain from 1999-2002.
(6) 1 + 2 + 3 = Statute of Limitations means he can deny this and not face any charges

Wait, what? Romney is claiming he wasn't the CEO/owner/founder? Are you stating a fact? Or are you confusing your own personal interpretations/characterizations with fact?

Maybe its just me, but when someone tells me their opinions I may well be skeptical until I have corroboration to my own satisfaction. But when someone tells me their own experiences, much less their own actions, I tend to accept that they are truthful unless I've a reason to believe they're lying.—But, like I said, maybe that's just me.

I will say, however, categorically, that placing more faith in cites off the internet than peoples first-hand experiences is not very smart. Just because you see it on television, or the internet, does not make it true. Most people find primary sources more reliable because they can be interrogated to help establish their veracity.—But perhaps you use some other method—like Ouija boards or whether its on Fox News.

Ok I'll summarise it in simple form for you (although I doubt this will help):
(1) Romney was the founder, owner, CEO (only BOD member) and President of Bain - fact.
(2) Romney signed SEC filings stating the above was true from 1999-2002 - fact.
(3) Romney is now claiming this is not true - fact.
(4) Every single business that is a privately listed has a BOD which is responsible for the management of that business - fact.
(5) 1 + 2 + 4 = Romney is responsible for the management of Bain from 1999-2002.
(6) 1 + 2 + 3 = Statute of Limitations means he can deny this and not face any charges

Have I made my point simple enough for you?

Truth???

Who's talking about "truth"???

"If it's TRUTH you're looking for, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
-Indiana Jones, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

I deal in FACTS...

As I said, your testimony is subjective and biased, so it's hardly the kind of FACTS that I would hang my hat on...

But if that's all you have, then it is what it is..

It's like when I use my personal experiences in working CT ops as background for my conclusions. It's not really PROOF that anyone can examine and confirm.. But it's one of those things that, if it IS valid (which it is), then so are my conclusions..

I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt that I am sure you would give me...

In other words, I don't think you would make up something, just to win an argument...

Michale.....

I feel like you keep repeating yourself, despite having no point to make.

Fortunately, its not my responsibility to correct the gaps in your education and its certainly not my responsibility to provide cites until you are convinced. — Then there's the not insignificant issue of your inability to reason logically. — Every primary source with first-hand information is "biased" they all (hopefully) believe what they think they know.

If you lack the ability to determine truth by applying and/or expanding your own knowledge through independent research, extrapolation, or inference that's your problem, not mine. — Although it would explain why you find right-wing propaganda so credible.

"But at the end of the day, the fact remains that there's no commission of perjury

I mean I guess we were expecting too much by assuming you know what the Statute of Limitations is or how it applies in this case. I forgot you're a birther/schooler, so you're probably too busy investigating whether the moon landing was real or not...

Err, no. As I stated, to this day Bain does not have a CEO. But, by all means, continue to try to twist the word "responsible" to mean whatever you need it to. But at the end of the day, the fact remains that there's no commission of perjury, just spin from the desperate Team-O machine. Make that $100M worth of spin, which has gotten them nowhere fast, but which you're still desperately trying to peddle.

As for your trip in the WayBack Machine to the days of Bush, allow me to clue you into a little bit of reality: Not only is Bush not running for the presidency but voters are concerned with the here and now, and the future. They don't live in the liberals' WayBack Machine. So your Bush statistics are meaningless. O's the incumbent president, and he's teamed with MEXICO to drive up food stamp participation. Tell me you think that sounds like something that's gonna play well with voters. Y'know, the voters of 2012, versus yesteryear.

Satisfied? There you have it, a primary source with actual first-hand knowledge, not just a cite.

But hardly an unbiased or objective source..

I would prefer documentation from the era that showed black Africans referring to their race as "African"...

Charlize Theron is an "African"... Theresa Heinz-Kerry is an "African"...

Kinda kills your theory.. :D

But as I said, I'll accept it conditionally, since you don't have anything else...

Michale....

In terms of percentage increase, Obama has put LESS people on food stamps than BOTH Bush Jr and Bush Snr. In between these guys, Clinton actually reduced the number of people on food-stamps by the biggest % reduction ever in US history. Funny Republicans don't mention their party has the worst record on food stamps often ;)?

I can see why you are so confused by this argument. You don't even understand basic private company structures and requirements! All listed companies are required to have a BOD with either a CEO, COO or COOCOOCLOCK - whatever you want to call the people on your BOD.

I just looked up their company filings. They were signed by 'Michael D. Ward' who is listed as 'Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer' as at March 31 2012. If Bain were outsourcing now, this would be the guy ultimately responsible; if Bain screw up, this will be the guy who resigns.

"I'll remind you that if there were any perjury case to be had, Team-O would be bringing it..."

I have already told you the Statute of Limitations has long passed on Romney's signings. There is literally no way anyone could make a case against him in court.

@[234]

Ultimate responsibility of how a company runs rests with their Board of Directors. The Bain BOD was compiled of: Mitt Romney (CEO). That's it. He was their BOD. He signed off all their filings. No-one else was on the BOD or brought on to the BOD during his leave of absence. From the very start I have maintained this is a pretty straight-forward case and calling Romney not responsible for the actions of Bain during this period is just silly. It's like saying the BOD isn't responsible for anything a company does. Laughable in the business world.

Just Google 'CEO resigns' and read the thousands of articles where a CEO takes responsibility for the performance of his company and leaves.

Romney wants to run on his economic record excluding the parts that he doesn't want to run on lol.

@[235,237,238]
First of all LOL. Secondly I actually providing a link in [227] that shows in 1961 Africans considered themselves African (I feel stupid just writing that lol).

Again, you seem to have issues understanding that whole ethics, truthfulness, perjury thing.

I think you have a problem understanding what "on paper" means. And, again, I'll remind you that if there were any perjury case to be had, Team-O would be bringing it instead of wasting $100M on innuendo, only to see O's numbers go DOWN as their return on investment. So continue spinning yourself all you want, but here's the bottom line: This. Dog. Don't. Hunt. So either bring the perjury charge or lay the horse to rest and move onto something that has traction. Those are Team-O's and the Left's PACs two choices following the abject failure of their $100M battleground blitzkrieg effort to "define Romney."

You're kidding, right?!

But just in case you are not. I am the source. You may quote me. As an American descendant of American slaves who, since the 1960's has, on occasion, personally self-identified as both Black and African-American, as have other African-Americans of my acquaintance, I personally attest that I have personally been told by Africans of my acquaintance over the years that Africans do not consider Black Americans to be Africans. Shockingly, said Africans did consider themselves to be Africans.

I further attest that neither myself nor any American descendant of slaves of my acquaintance has ever considered themselves to be African. However, African immigrants and descendents of African immigrants who are not U.S. citizens do consider themselves to be Africans. While African immigrants and descendents of African immigrants who are U.S. citizens consider themselves to be African-Americans.

Satisfied? There you have it, a primary source with actual first-hand knowledge, not just a cite.

No, I am not...

If you don't have a cite, if you are just relaying what you have heard from people who were alive in 1961 and could attest to that claim, then I will have to conditionally accept your answer..

Conditional on the fact that what you are saying is accurate...

In other words, I would like to have PROOF of your claim, but in absence of proof, I am willing to, conditionally, take your word for it.. :D

In shorter words, if you are right, then you are right.

If you are wrong, then I am right.. :D

Michale....

Your are kidding right?!

If a company has no CEO then no one files as CEO swearing under oath that they are CEO.

Again, you seem to have issues understanding that whole ethics, truthfulness, perjury thing.

You also don't seem to understand the statute of limitations. Romney can't be prosecuted a dozen years after the fact. Its the law. And for your information prosecution is not proof of guilt. Prosecution and conviction are proof of the governments right to punish guilt.

Likewise a lack of prosecution or lack of conviction does not mean innocence it means the government has no authority to punish. Its innocence under the law.Which is why you can be found innocent criminally and still be convicted civilly.

I don't imagine you'll appreciate the difference but if you choose to remain ignorant it will at least be your choice.

Cite???

Michale

Just want to clarify that the reason the management issue (being CEO not just the owner) is important to me is that I'm more concerned about Romney's blatant lying about his role with Bain than I am about his involvement with Bain outsourcing. I've never had any respect for corporate raiders, outsourcing is small-potatoes to me.

Its Romney's lack of trustworthiness due to his dishonesty that I think is the important issue with regard to his fitness for the Presidency.

Shockingly, Africans have always considered their race to be "African."

Americans, especially those of us descended from slaves, tend to assume we're of African descent (since most slaves were from Africa and our antecedents during slavery are often unknown and untraceable) and tend to self-identify as African-American or Black. We do not self-identify as "African." And Africans certainly don't consider us to be African.

You can state your personal understanding of the law as unequvical fact all you want. But the bottom line is, if Team-O had an SEC case to bring against Romney, they'd be all over it like a cheap suit. Thing is, they don't have a case, and all your spin regurgitating isn't gonna change that brutally obvious fact. Not that that's gonna stop the Left's infamous circular firing squad. How's that $100M smear campaign working out for Team-O and the PACs? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tied-virginia-romney-44-obama-44_648745.html You folks really don't know when to stop beating a dead horse.

If a CEO appoints someone to manage in his absence then the "interim CEO" is the one who signs filings as "CEO."

If you are on a leave of absence you do not sign any corporate filings. If you do sing any corporate filings you are doing work for the corporation and therefore no longer on leave of absence.

Shocking, but true!

Unfortunately, I am at work now, so time doesn't permit. I'll get to your posts tonight around 1800hrs EDT. :D

Michale...

Now on to the real debate:
In name only... As we have agreed, he had absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for what Bain did in those years..

You have a different understanding of how business works than I do. If owners, Presidents and CEOs are no longer responsible for the decisions their companies make in today’s day and age I guess I should just burn my business degree…

No, he did not. He had totally and completely divorced himself from Bain. That's what FactCheck says.. And we have agreed that FactCheck's word is gospel. Or are you saying that FactCeck's word is only gospel when it supports your position? :D

Nope, I agree with fact-check as I have stated many times. I absolutely agree he was not involved in the day-to-day running of Bain and on a leave of absence from this. However, being CEO, President and Owner carries many other FIDCUIARY DUTIES, including oversight of management. Based on these fiduciary duties he is fully responsible, like any other CEO who signs their name on their SEC filings, for overseeing management. He didn’t make the decisions – I agree with fact-check on this – but he is RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING THE PEOPLE WHO DID. This is a legal, indisputable fact – it is how CORPORATE GOVERNANCE works in business!

Only on things that Obama WANTS to release.. He has been less transparent on the things the American voters want to see...

Lol I mean this describes Romney perfectly. I have no idea how you think this applies to Obama more than Romney. It’s not like Obama’s father ran for President and released 12 years of school records and Obama is now failing to follow. I have demonstrated quite clearly several times that Obama is more transparent than Romney. Do you agree with this statement or not? It doesn’t matter what you schoolers/birthers believe, the question is: has Obama released more information than Romney?

Further, you keep dodging this.. If Obama's "claim to fame" is his intelligence (as Romney's "claim to fame" is his economic prowess) is it logical to have Obama PROVE his intelligence?? You want Romney to PROVE his bona fides, right??
Why do you not demand the same of Obama??
Why won't Obama release his records??

Lol I mean there you go trying to put words into my mouth. NO I DO NOT WANT ROMNEY TO PROVE HIS. I know what his record is. I know, like Obama, he went to Harvard. Generally when a guy goes to ONE OF THE TOP UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD (2nd in the world in 2011-12), I am willing to take his educational level as good! I am not a nut-job-conspiracy-theorist who believes that unless full information is released he is guilty lol.

I am also not a hypocrite. If I demanded Romney released his school records, I would demand the same of Obama. But you conspiracy nuts are only demanding this of Obama. And you don’t see WHY THIS MEANS YOU ARE COMPLETELY BIASED on the issue??

President Bush's school records were hacked and leaked by Democrats during the 2004 election..

I mean I don’t know what to say to this one. Now you’re just making stuff up. A leftie hacked Bush. Lololol. I mean if you’re going to lie at least have a source.

All you had to do was check Bush’s official site where he officially published the transcript: http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp
Damn they must’ve hacked his own site and he left it up there lololol. But no keep believing your conspiracy nonsense about how the left is hacking and cheating left, right and centre.

Yet, there is NO other birth certificate of that era, of that timeframe that has "AFRICAN" as the race. AFRICAN wasn't even a RACE at the time. That came later with all the Left's PC crap..”

Yes this is why they put a 9 next to it lol. Because it wasn’t on the list of recognized race codes. The Hawaiian DOH has confirmed (MANY TIMES) that parents were allowed to state their race. Kenyans like Obama’s dad thought of themselves as African, an example from a book at the period http://www.scribd.com/doc/54152116/AFRICA-A-Z or this from the Kenyan census in 1962 (google and see for yourself)...

I mean you really think Obama’s going to invest millions and mountains of man power to come up with this forgery then put ‘African’ as his father’s race deliberately??? Haaaaaaaaahahahaha. 12 year old logic at play again.

It's a STRONG indication that the Hawaii AG doesn't want to commit perjury..
If the BC shown by Obama IS the same as the one on file in Hawaii, why not say so?? Surely the incentive to clear up this mess MUST be overwhelming..

Ah more 12 year old level logic. If they don’t release something they are guilty. So since Romney hasn’t released his birth certificate and the Attorney General of Michigan hasn’t confirmed it IT MUST BE FAKE TOO! Lolol.

You do realize that obtaining long form birth certificates requires making a specific request to the DOH? And you need further permission to allow it to be photocopied? But no, that's not enough let's make more exceptions because we're not happy with the FACTS! We need EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN HAWAII to confirm it's real LOLOL.

WOW! Who could have predicted that a Leftie would go to FactCheck when it said something that said Leftie wants to believe!?

Nope logic fail AGAIN. I agree with fact-check on this issue AND the issue you raised earlier. Because I am not a hypocrite, conspiracy-nut-fact-hater like you are.

To be honest I don’t know why I am even debating this with you since you can’t understand basic logic. But I am convinced in my mind you might be rational enough to see sense. Like I said I’m probably being naïve. I’ll give you 2 more posts on birther nonsense, after that we’re done.