NYT clears Romney: No Evidence Romney lied

[Lakhota]

It's good to see wingnuts holding The New York Times in such high esteem for a change. We'll see how long that lasts after the other Romney shoe drops...

 

[Dr.House]

And in typical CON$ervofascist fashion, you dishonestly edited out the essential part that shows Willard's campaign is hiding something. Remember in Willard's hearing on his eligibility to run for governor it was stated that he actively attended the board meetings!!!

Here's what you dishonestly edited out immediately after the ellipsis:

The first part of the sentence is the essential part of it... That's why they put it first...

You fail again... The absence of something does not signify guilt...

Has Rush Limbaugh had you arrested yet for stalking?

BULLSHIT!

If the part you edited out was not critical, neither you nor newsmax would have edited it out!!! You reveal it's absolute importance by your attempt to hide it.
Thank you.

Whether the Romney camp released anything is NOT critical to the NYT agreeing that there is no evidence of any wrong doing...

You fail again...

Back to stalking Limbaugh...

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

All Romney has to do is release his income tax returns - along with all relevant Bain documentation for the years in question. Problem solved...

Except there is no problem. All there is is leftist butthurt.

That's interesting logic. It's just, if there's no problem then shouldn't there be no problem releasing the documents?

 

[Avatar4321]

It's good to see wingnuts holding The New York Times in such high esteem for a change. We'll see how long that lasts after the other Romney shoe drops...

High esteem? No.

You see, to be persuasive it sometimes is good to cite sources reliable to your audience.

 

[GuyPinestra]

People think the NYT is partisan because a few of their op-ed writers are on the Left.

But in issue after issue, the NYT shows no clear loyalty to party. Indeed, the NYT actively suppressed the illegal wiretapping scandal on the eve of the 2004 election. Additionally, they were a vocal supporter of the Iraq War in the beginning. They would not let Noam Chomsky - an MIT professor - author an article.

The reality is that the NYT is the true paper of record. Two weeks ago they gave prime space to a global warming denier. William Crystal - far Right neocon - was an op-ed writer. Strong conservative, David Brooks, is a regular contributor. Before him there was William Safire. The NYT has always had rightwing elements.

Truth is, the right demonizes all media sources that are not tightly controlled by movement conservatism.

This allows the party to control what people think about Bin Laden's relationship to Hussein or (say) the existence of death panels in ObamaCare (first proposed by a Republican who wanted to reign in Medicare costs by having a doctor counsel the elderly (and their family) on end of life care)

Consider Bush's Medicare Part D - the greatest expansion of our entitlement system since LBJ. Did anybody notice how little protest there was from the Right? Had conservative voters been allowed to stray from their very small number of newspapers, radio stations, magazines, and websites - that is, had they not been so strategically prejudiced against papers like the NYT - they would have learned about Bush's expansion of the entitlement system. As it stood, they didn't even know about this.

Every time a conservative turns on one of their news sources, they hear how terrible the NYT is. This is text book information-control. Every Republican president benefits from the fact that his base will never be exposed to the "wrong" kinds of information.

If Obama did something as big as Medicare Part D - if he expanded government to this extent - the Tea Party would pour into the streets in every city in America. If Bush or Romney does it, you don't hear a peep.

God Help Us. We no longer have a free press. 1/2 the country has been 100% captured, and the other half is not far behind.

You know, you ask where the 'Tea Party' was when Bush did Part D. You do it in a way that twists who and what the Tea Party is.

We were that bunch that y'all called 'Kooks' when we supported Ron Paul the LAST election. You should have listened to us then.

We were the ones that did the peaceful protests that gave the TEA Party it's name.

We're the ones that are finally voting out the crony capitalists in our party.

It's funny, too, we manage to dislodge a few of the bloated pigs at the public trough, and the Republicans call us 'dangerous'.

The Democrats call us 'dangerous racist teabaggers'.

As many bloated porkers as you've got on your side of the aisle it looks like the Democrats could use some 'Teabaggers', too.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Does that mean he will return all the money he was paid?????????????

You mean his retirement package? The package he specifically recieved because he was no longer working there?

Why on earth would he do that?

Considering he is the co-founder, and now that "package" you speak of is STILL paying him millions of dollars a year... I mean... Eh... He's more like a silent partner in the business, than separate from the business. To this day the better Bain does, the more money he makes if I understand everything correctly.

If I am incorrect in this feel free to educate me.

There's something wrong with that?

 

[Dr.House]

All Romney has to do is release his income tax returns - along with all relevant Bain documentation for the years in question. Problem solved...

Except there is no problem. All there is is leftist butthurt.

That's interesting logic. It's just, if there's no problem then shouldn't there be no problem releasing the documents?

He released them - they're on a stack of papers labeled "0bama College Transcripts"....

Look again...

 

[Conservative]

NYT clears Romney: No Evidence Romney lied

No such article exists. You are a liar.

Google search "nyt calls Obama a liar" comes up with no article.

and you are a moron.

here is the article from the NY Times, dumb ass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/when-did-romney-step-back-from-bain-its-complicated.htm?_r=1

page two...

Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left, although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period.

Sounds like the NY Times cleared him to me.

dumb ass.

 

[Oddball]

It's good to see wingnuts holding The New York Times in such high esteem for a change. We'll see how long that lasts after the other Romney shoe drops...

You're confusing people holding those hacks in high esteem with amusement that even they can't carry Boiking's water, in the face of the indisputable facts.

We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.

 

[edthecynic]

NYTimes: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left..."

CON$ervoFascists always reveal that they know they are lying by the parts they edit out!!!
In this case you edited out the part that shows Willard's campaign knows he attended board meetings as his hearing on his eligibility for governor stated he did.

although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period.

Again, for the Limbaugh Stalkers out there...

NYTimes: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left..."

That important part of the NYTimes reported article means there is no fucking evidence of the shit you lying sacks of shit continue to preach as your own little gospel...

The NYTimes says you are lying...

So what's the next fauxtrage?

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler

And the part you dishonestly edited out "although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period." says they do not have all the info and Willard's campaign does not want to make a comment that may be later exposed as a lie. remember Willard's hearing on his eligibility to run for governor stated he continued to serve on the board of directors and returned to Mass. for most of its board meetings for the entire 3 years he was working on the Olympics.

 

[Dr.House]

CON$ervoFascists always reveal that they know they are lying by the parts they edit out!!!
In this case you edited out the part that shows Willard's campaign knows he attended board meetings as his hearing on his eligibility for governor stated he did.

Again, for the Limbaugh Stalkers out there...

NYTimes: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left..."

That important part of the NYTimes reported article means there is no fucking evidence of the shit you lying sacks of shit continue to preach as your own little gospel...

The NYTimes says you are lying...

So what's the next fauxtrage?

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler

And the part you dishonestly edited out "although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period." says they do not have all the info and Willard's campaign does not want to make a comment that may be later exposed as a lie. remember Willard's hearing on his eligibility to run for governor stated he continued to serve on the board of directors and returned to Mass. for most of its board meetings for the entire 3 years he was working on the Olympics.

Again, for the terminally stupid like Ed (who is now quoting his hero Hitler):

The NYT found no evidence of wrongdoing....

You can pretend they did, but you are a fucking dumbass, so go for it...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Where is the link to the "actual" NY Times article?

It was not provided because it has stuff like this:

When Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts a decade ago, Democrats went before a state commission to demand that he be struck from the ballot. Their argument: After taking over the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he had ceased to live and work in Massachusetts, the state where he had built Bain Capital into one of the leading private equity firms in the world.

Mr. Romney’s team was just as insistent in arguing the opposite. For 30 years, his lawyer argued, “the center of his social, civic and business life has been in this commonwealth.”

Now, amid the heat of the presidential campaign and unrelenting attacks from Democrats over Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain, the three-year sojourn in Utah has again become the source of controversy — but with the positions reversed.

President Obama and the Democrats are questioning whether Mr. Romney really left Bain in February 1999, when he took over the Olympics. And Mr. Romney and the Republicans are insisting that he ended his day-to-day management role at Bain after taking the Olympics job.

Which begs the question was Willard lying then or is Willard lying now. Willard cannot be telling the truth both times.

The only way your premise is true is if this...

For 30 years, his lawyer argued, “the center of his social, civic and business life has been in this commonwealth.”

magically becomes this...

his day-to-day management role at Bain

Now you might be a cunning linguist, but I doubt even you can twist your tongue around THAT.

 

[Conservative]

Where is the link to the "actual" NY Times article?

post #108

 

[Conservative]

CON$ervoFascists always reveal that they know they are lying by the parts they edit out!!!
In this case you edited out the part that shows Willard's campaign knows he attended board meetings as his hearing on his eligibility for governor stated he did.

Again, for the Limbaugh Stalkers out there...

NYTimes: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left..."

That important part of the NYTimes reported article means there is no fucking evidence of the shit you lying sacks of shit continue to preach as your own little gospel...

The NYTimes says you are lying...

So what's the next fauxtrage?

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler

And the part you dishonestly edited out "although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period." says they do not have all the info and Willard's campaign does not want to make a comment that may be later exposed as a lie. remember Willard's hearing on his eligibility to run for governor stated he continued to serve on the board of directors and returned to Mass. for most of its board meetings for the entire 3 years he was working on the Olympics.

post 108, dipshit.

 

[edthecynic]

The first part of the sentence is the essential part of it... That's why they put it first...

You fail again... The absence of something does not signify guilt...

Has Rush Limbaugh had you arrested yet for stalking?

BULLSHIT!

If the part you edited out was not critical, neither you nor newsmax would have edited it out!!! You reveal it's absolute importance by your attempt to hide it.
Thank you.

Whether the Romney camp released anything is NOT critical to the NYT agreeing that there is no evidence of any wrong doing...

You fail again...

Back to stalking Limbaugh...

You and newsmax PROVED it IS critical by dishonestly leaving it out! Willard calculated it is better to refuse to answer the question rather than deny he attended the board meetings and have them leak out and nail him in yet another lie. Remember there is already testimony in his eligibility hearing that he was at MOST of the board meetings for the 3 years he was involved with the Olympics, so if he denies it now then he was lying then.

 

[Dot Com]

CON$ervoFascists always reveal that they know they are lying by the parts they edit out!!!
In this case you edited out the part that shows Willard's campaign knows he attended board meetings as his hearing on his eligibility for governor stated he did.

Again, for the Limbaugh Stalkers out there...

NYTimes: "Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left..."

That important part of the NYTimes reported article means there is no fucking evidence of the shit you lying sacks of shit continue to preach as your own little gospel...

The NYTimes says you are lying...

So what's the next fauxtrage?

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler

And the part you dishonestly edited out "although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period." says they do not have all the info and Willard's campaign does not want to make a comment that may be later exposed as a lie. remember Willard's hearing on his eligibility to run for governor stated he continued to serve on the board of directors and returned to Mass. for most of its board meetings for the entire 3 years he was working on the Olympics.

Trying to reason w/ Housegimp after catching him in an intentional edit exactly at the point where it gives a different interpretation? Good luck LOL

Funny that the campaign didn't "neglect" to mention or "forget" to mention but they "declined" to mention.

although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period.

 

[Dr.House]

Thank god Dottie Dumbfuck did her usual driveby with nothing to add...

Where'd we be without that?

 

[Dr.House]

BULLSHIT!

If the part you edited out was not critical, neither you nor newsmax would have edited it out!!! You reveal it's absolute importance by your attempt to hide it.
Thank you.

Whether the Romney camp released anything is NOT critical to the NYT agreeing that there is no evidence of any wrong doing...

You fail again...

Back to stalking Limbaugh...

You and newsmax PROVED it IS critical by dishonestly leaving it out! Willard calculated it is better to refuse to answer the question rather than deny he attended the board meetings and have them leak out and nail him in yet another lie. Remember there is already testimony in his eligibility hearing that he was at MOST of the board meetings for the 3 years he was involved with the Olympics, so if he denies it now then he was lying then.

The NYT found no wrong doing...

You can deny that, but we'll just keep laughing at you....

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Except there is no problem. All there is is leftist butthurt.

That's interesting logic. It's just, if there's no problem then shouldn't there be no problem releasing the documents?

He released them - they're on a stack of papers labeled "0bama College Transcripts"....

Look again...

But i'm not talking about "0bama College Transcripts" I'm talking about Romney's tax returns, I really don't see how people get the two mixed....

 

[GuyPinestra]

The truth is pretty muddy actually. The truth is that if he disagreed with what the "present" ownership was doing, he could have stopped it if he was actually the absentee owner in charge of the company....

Obama has nothing to apologize for.

Nope, what's clear is that the accusation is debunked. Since you lost that one, now you're arguing a 'what if'.

The problem with the 'What if' argument is evident if you've every had a young child. It ranks right up there with the 'Why' game, it's never-ending!

And just like a child you'll go on... and on... and on...