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...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
BULLSHIT!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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.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?
If I am incorrect in this feel free to educate me.
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?
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.
Sounds like the NY Times cleared him to me.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.
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.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...
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.CON$ervoFascists always reveal that they know they are lying by the parts they edit out!!!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..."
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.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?
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.
It was not provided because it has stuff like this:Where is the link to the "actual" NY Times article?
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. Romneys 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. Romneys 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.
magically becomes this...For 30 years, his lawyer argued, the center of his social, civic and business life has been in this commonwealth.
his day-to-day management role at Bain
Where is the link to the "actual" NY Times article?
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.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?
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.
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.BULLSHIT!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?
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...
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.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?
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.
although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period.
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.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...
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...
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.