The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Factcheck called this story a lie
Washington Post called this a lie
Supporters of Obama called this a lie
All the Lady Jazzer screaming fonts and constant repeating the same thing over and over will not change the facts. And all the facts, the truth, is presented in multiple links on this thread. The Washington Post and Factcheck.org are both left leaning organizations and they have nothing to gain by presenting the truth.
Nothing to gain but the truth.
speaking of lies, neither WP or Factcheck stated that the statements were lies, only that there was not sufficient evidence to prove them at this time.
At this time?
FactCheck.org
"New reporting cites strong evidence that Mitt Romney wasn’t actively managing Bain Capital while he was running the Olympics, despite what the Obama campaign (and some news reports) would have voters believe."
Fortune Magazine
"Fortune obtained the offering documents for a Bain Capital Fund circulating in June 2000, as well as a fund in 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the “key investment professionals.” As Fortune put it, “the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain -- which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.”"
Washington Post
"The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right)."
I'm really having a difficult time deciding on this issue with differences between such reliable, unbiased sources such as as factcheck.org and the huffingtonpost.com.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?
The Democrats are so desperate that soon the'll be demanding proof Romney was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963... and it's kind of odd how Romney just happened to not be in New York on 9/11. What did he know? And my personal favorite: There is little proof Romney wasn’t steering the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?
The Democrats are so desperate that soon the'll be demanding proof Romney was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963... and it's kind of odd how Romney just happened to not be in New York on 9/11. What did he know? And my personal favorite: There is little proof Romney wasn’t steering the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.
Naw...only a wing-nut birther conspiracy conservative would be so paranoid.
Spin it however it makes you feel better, but there's no getting around it: either he lied to the SEC or he's lying to everyone else. Funniest part is nobody's surprised on either side.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?
The Democrats are so desperate that soon the'll be demanding proof Romney was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963... and it's kind of odd how Romney just happened to not be in New York on 9/11. What did he know? And my personal favorite: There is little proof Romney wasn’t steering the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.
Naw...only a wing-nut birther conspiracy conservative would be so paranoid.
Spin it however it makes you feel better, but there's no getting around it: either he lied to the SEC or he's lying to everyone else. Funniest part is nobody's surprised on either side.
If you had actually read the factcheck.org material, or the Washington Post, or saw the 9 minute interview between Anderson Cooper and two democratic operatives on CNN, or if you listen to one of his campaign officials...
"President Obama’s campaign spokeswoman on Air Force One backed away from yesterday’s suggestion that Mitt Romney had committed “a felony” by allegedly misrepresenting his relationship with Bain Capital on documents submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission." (Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said today)"
... or Ed Rendell on MSNBC...
"All this attack may be hurting the president’s brand a little bit, too. Like, I think our supporters went a little bit too far with the felony business. … I’m not sure it does us well to be saying it. It’s okay if the press says it.”"
... or the statement by CNN...
"CNN reported last night that the accusations from Team Obama of felonious conduct are sheer nonsense and lies — and got that message from four executives at Bain, two of whom are “active” supporters of Barack Obama. John King spoke to all four, three of whom are Democrats, and all four said that Mitt Romney left Bain in a big hurry in 1999 in order to work full time on rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics. The rushed departure created a lot of paperwork headaches as Bain tried to unwind Romney from leadership, which required a significant amount of time. That’s why the company had Romney’s name on their SEC paperwork the next two years, as King reports:"
... if you paid close attention your wouldn't be belittling yourself by lying on a public forum like you are.
I think we should call all these libs who are so focused on Mitt's tax records "Taxers". Why do the same people who don't care about the nationality of the President the least bit worry about Romney's old tax records? It doesn't make sense.
Rush has it right.
When Did Romney Leave Bain? Who Cares? When Will Obama Leave the White House?
It doesn't matter a hill of beans when Romney left Bain. The discussion ought to be, when is Obama gonna leave the White House? What Romney did with his money is not my concern. What Obama is doing with our money is my concern.
Who gives a flying whatever when Romney left Bain? The media does and Obama does because that's all they've got.
So we've got the distraction of the day. When did Mitt Romney leave Bain Capital?
If you had the last three years to run on like Obama, you'd be wanting to talk about when Mitt left Bain too. You'd want to talk about ANYTHING but your sorry assed record.
Romney should be like Obama. Give the ABSOLUTE minimum information required to qualify as a presidential candidate and then tell them to STFU.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?
You're right Dog - the word "lie" isn't to be found in those articles - the articles instead demonstrate that there is no truth to be found in the allegation. Another distinction without a difference where the left must cling to the lack of a specific word being used when it is readily apparent to all that thedefinition of the word.itself has been satisfied. One would think you had more dignity than that, but events have demonstrated otherwise.
