Dinki: While I love bashing on Romney as mush as any other primate, this particular incident doesn't strike me as a huge 'gotcha'. Regardless of whether he 'retired' or not in 1999, he was still CEO of Bain at the time.

And as the sole shareholder, owner, CEO, managing director, and controlling person at Bain Capital from 1999-2001, Willard Mitt Romney:

1) Had the power to prevent Bain Capital from shipping jobs overseas, and

2) Personally profited from Bain Capital shipping jobs overseas.

He is therefore personally responsible for Bain Capital shipping jobs overseas.

Captain Steroid: For Romney:

[imageshack.us image 452x846]

No, no.

Dig *up*, stupid!

One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

By the end of all this, the Republican party, the Olympics, and Bain Co are all going to deny ever being affiliated with Romney.

MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

Chief EXECUTIVE OFFICER is a position within an organization. It is a spot on the active org chart, at the very top, just below the dotted line to the Board of Directors, which takes the inactive oversight role you're trying to spin this into.

Otherwise, he would be simply Chairman of the Board of Directors, and someone else would have to be the CEO.

CEO is not an honorary title. It is a job description for people actually doing executive work at the very top level of a corporation.

Nadie_AZ: He didn't say anything, just smiled. He was introduced as the CEO, not former CEO.

I don't know. I mean, I fully believe he lied, but I'm not sure this is anything.

Yea, I don't think he's a felon over this or anything. I think he just wanted to distance himself from some bad-looking things Bain did and overreached. Now he's just going to stupidly dig himself deeper by not coming out with some version of "woops". Or he's pulling a brilliant rope-a-dope and shortly before the election will have spotless tax returns and a perfect explanation for the bain thing.

His biggest mistake is not embracing his wealthy businessman image all the way, imo. Well, I can see why that would be difficult given that if he, as a businessman, did things that the average joe views as bad (anything other than job creation glory I guess) then he'll essentially become a poster boy for

"there is nothing wrong with wealthy people scoring every bit of gold they can. They will act within the system to do exactly that, and if you want to curb the bad behaviors that are bad for our society you have to create a regulatory system that guides them towards the right decisions and protects those morally superior businessmen who would do the right thing but end up losing market share to those companies that don't"

Or something to that effect. The last thing republicans need is the tea party figuring out that not all regulation is bad and not all wealthy are superman job creators. But I won't be shedding any tears that their own rhetoric is biting them in the ass and pigeonholing their own candidates into lying.

This is what happens when you run a man who has NEVER had to be accountable for ANYthing in his ENTIRE LIFE.

/be careful asking for "anyone but Obama"
//you might wind up with "Anyone"

Captain Steroid: For Romney:

[imageshack.us image 452x846]

He's digging so hard he might get to see some of the jobs he created in China pretty soon.

MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

Chief EXECUTIVE OFFICER is a position within an organization. It is a spot on the active org chart, at the very top, just below the dotted line to the Board of Directors, which takes the inactive oversight role you're trying to spin this into.

Otherwise, he would be simply Chairman of the Board of Directors, and someone else would have to be the CEO.

CEO is not an honorary title. It is a job description for people actually doing executive work at the very top level of a corporation.

These requirements for what a CEO must or must not do are made up. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple to deal with his illness. He was still CEO. A private firm like Bain even has more leeway as it has no public shareholders to answer to.

When you are looking for the gold standard in business behavior, Steve Jobs is the man to look to.

Philip Francis Queeg: When you are looking for the gold standard in business behavior, Steve Jobs is the man to look to.

Before or after he was fired?

skullkrusher: These requirements for what a CEO must or must not do are made up. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple to deal with his illness. He was still CEO. A private firm like Bain even has more leeway as it has no public shareholders to answer to.


The requirements for what a CEO must and must not do, if any, are written into policies and procedures by which the company operates.

The position of CEO within a process is constant. It's a definition.

When Jobs took a leave of absence, he appointed an Acting CEO -- Notice that? Someone who has the position of Chief Executive Officer, temporarily? That's because large corporations require an executive officer in charge of operations.

CEO, CFO, COO -- These are job descriptions with duties attached to them through policies and procedures. They have responsibilities for the active operation of the company.

I seem to recall the story of another founder who refused to let others lay eyes on documents he had in his possession, documents that, once translated, would reveal a great truth.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

Chief EXECUTIVE OFFICER is a position within an organization. It is a spot on the active org chart, at the very top, just below the dotted line to the Board of Directors, which takes the inactive oversight role you're trying to spin this into.

Otherwise, he would be simply Chairman of the Board of Directors, and someone else would have to be the CEO.

CEO is not an honorary title. It is a job description for people actually doing executive work at the very top level of a corporation.

These requirements for what a CEO must or must not do are made up. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple to deal with his illness. He was still CEO. A private firm like Bain even has more leeway as it has no public shareholders to answer to.

When you are looking for the gold standard in business behavior, Steve Jobs is the man to look to.

oh? Why not? Was he not a highly visible CEO of one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world who took a leave from his duties while retaining his title? Of course he was. What was your point?

Oops, I forgot that ethics is a meaningless concept to you . Being visible and powerfull excuses all acts in your world.

skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

Chief EXECUTIVE OFFICER is a position within an organization. It is a spot on the active org chart, at the very top, just below the dotted line to the Board of Directors, which takes the inactive oversight role you're trying to spin this into.

Otherwise, he would be simply Chairman of the Board of Directors, and someone else would have to be the CEO.

CEO is not an honorary title. It is a job description for people actually doing executive work at the very top level of a corporation.

These requirements for what a CEO must or must not do are made up. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple to deal with his illness. He was still CEO. A private firm like Bain even has more leeway as it has no public shareholders to answer to.

When Steve Jobs took his leave of absence, Tim Cook ran the day-to-day operaitons as interim CEO. So fill me in here, because the liberal elite media isn't reporting it -- who took over as acting CEO when Romney left Bain in 1999?

MyRandomName: The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner.

Bullshiat. Words have meanings. I've worked for privately held companies and we had an owner and a CEO. The owner owned many companies and did not handle the day to day operations of the company. The SEC papers list Romney as the "controlling person" of the corporation. Therefore, he was responsible for anything that the company did during that time.

The funny thing is, if he had just been open and up front about this from the beginning, it probably wouldn't have hurt him very much at all. It probably should hurt him- Americans are entirely too tolerant of the kind of capitalism that has no regard for human consequences- but it probably wouldn't hurt him. It's dishonesty and evasiveness that people can't stand.

Finally, they found the smoking ho-hum.

MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

So who was the big cheese of Bain? Name please!

skullkrusher: Whether Romney was actively involved in Bain is up for debate but the mere fact that he was listed as the CEO does not prove anything and it is certainly not without precedent.

He was listed as "the controlling person" in the SEC filings. You can play word games with CEO, but "controlling person" has some legal weight.

This is kind of a non-issue, but the way Romney is handling it makes for some fine Theater.

skullkrusher: There is no set of things or duties a CEO must perform to retain his title.

That is why I said the opposite of that.

A CEO is a definition.

What the CEO does or doesn't do is up to the company, but if you are not the chief executive officer -- the one person who makes executive decision -- you are not the CEO of the company.

I suppose if you deliberately want to mislead someone, you can give yourself the title of Wankenstillner, but legally, you're going to be the CEO if you are the person who makes the top-level executive decisions for the company.

If you have no role in a company, you are not the CEO, even if you own it. You are the Chairman of the Board, or possibly even the sole member of the board, but you are not the CEO.

Again, CEO is a definition, and you don't know the first thing about business operations.

FloydA: At this point, I suspect his campaign staff are relying solely on sympathy votes.

At this point, I believe they're drinking so heavily they no longer care.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

Chief EXECUTIVE OFFICER is a position within an organization. It is a spot on the active org chart, at the very top, just below the dotted line to the Board of Directors, which takes the inactive oversight role you're trying to spin this into.

Otherwise, he would be simply Chairman of the Board of Directors, and someone else would have to be the CEO.

CEO is not an honorary title. It is a job description for people actually doing executive work at the very top level of a corporation.

These requirements for what a CEO must or must not do are made up. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple to deal with his illness. He was still CEO. A private firm like Bain even has more leeway as it has no public shareholders to answer to.

When you are looking for the gold standard in business behavior, Steve Jobs is the man to look to.

oh? Why not? Was he not a highly visible CEO of one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world who took a leave from his duties while retaining his title? Of course he was. What was your point?

Oops, I forgot that ethics is a meaningless concept to you . Being visible and powerfull excuses all acts in your world.

lol yeah taking a leave of absence to tend to your pancreatic cancer is unethical. You're an idiot. It's not even up for debate anymore.

No it really wasn't ethical. Jobs knew he was never coming back. He knew that he was terminal at the time he took the leave. Retaining the title was nothing more than ego, and a means of hiding the truth from investors.

When do we move on to the Bush on Kerry type of attacks against the flip flopping? The CEO line isn't really going anywhere further, the tax returns are the current club and the flip flopping on literally every major issue to conservative voters should be highlighted at some point.

It is sad that Obama was expected to release his birth certificate, which no other candidate in history has been required to do, yet Romney gets a free pass or defended by the conservative press for failing to adhere to a custom started by his own father in releasing his tax return. It's the tip of the iceberg as far as hypocrisy is concerned unfortunately.

skullkrusher: VulpesVulpes: When Steve Jobs took his leave of absence, Tim Cook ran the day-to-day operaitons as interim CEO. So fill me in here, because the liberal elite media isn't reporting it -- who took over as acting CEO when Romney left Bain in 1999?

no one. What do you think that proves aside from my point - that a person can retain the title of CEO without actually doing anything?

Your comparison was Steve Jobs' leave of absence. That was asserted to prove your point that a CEO often does nothing in the day-to-day operations of a company. My point was that if the job of CEO had no duties, why would Steve Jobs need to appoint someone to take over his day-to-day duties? Ergo, your comparison is invalid. Pick a different one.

Smackledorfer:
His biggest mistake is not embracing his wealthy businessman image all the way, imo. Well, I can see why that would be difficult given that if he, as a businessman, did things that the average joe views as bad (anything other than job creation glory I guess) then he'll essentially become a poster boy for

"You're damn right I fired people and sent jobs overseas. Businesses need to run lean and profitably, not keep people on staff at a deficit just to make people fel good. And I'd do the same thing with our bloated, inefficient governmental payroll-- I'd love to fire or offshore half the federal workforce if it means the government can run at a profit,not a gigantic deficit..." etc.

Anybody wondering if Romney's advisors are having Mittens read the story of the Tar-Baby tonight? Because baby, this whole Bain CEO 1999-2002 thing perfectly matches that story. Obama's campaign seems to be 4 steps ahead of Mitt no matter what he tries to do. The more Mitt fights against the Bain attacks the worse it gets.

skullkrusher: he was the CEO of Bain in 2001. Has this ever been contested? He signed farking documents with the SEC that lists him as CEO

Until he started contesting it last week, no.

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: MyRandomName: One day liberals will stop being farking retarded when it comes to business... one day.

The sole owner of a company often holds the title of CEO even if he is not actively managing the company. The title is that because he's the owner. Stop being farking retarded. You are just displaying your crass ignorance of how business works. It's sad and pathetic.

I know more than one owner who has the CEO titles but are not actively managing their company. It's especially common with restaurants or bars.

Chief EXECUTIVE OFFICER is a position within an organization. It is a spot on the active org chart, at the very top, just below the dotted line to the Board of Directors, which takes the inactive oversight role you're trying to spin this into.

Otherwise, he would be simply Chairman of the Board of Directors, and someone else would have to be the CEO.

CEO is not an honorary title. It is a job description for people actually doing executive work at the very top level of a corporation.

These requirements for what a CEO must or must not do are made up. Steve Jobs took a leave of absence from Apple to deal with his illness. He was still CEO. A private firm like Bain even has more leeway as it has no public shareholders to answer to.

When you are looking for the gold standard in business behavior, Steve Jobs is the man to look to.

oh? Why not? Was he not a highly visible CEO of one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world who took a leave from his duties while retaining his title? Of course he was. What was your point?

Oops, I forgot that ethics is a meaningless concept to you . Being visible and powerfull excuses all acts in your world.

lol yeah taking a leave of absence to tend to your pancreatic cancer is unethical. You're an idiot. It's not even up for debate anymore.

No it really wasn't ethical. Jobs knew he was never coming back. He knew that he was terminal at the time he took the leave. Retaining the title was nothing more than ego, and a means of hiding the truth from investors.

It's not an unprecedented move to hide the departure of a powerful figure in an organization to try not to undermine investor confidence. Standard Oil did it a hundred years ago when John D. Rockefeller left to maintain confidence in the company, however he did still end up with a subpoena in the anti-trust suit because of his perceived position as the head of Standard Oil. Not sure how this really applies to the Bain situation, but you could draw a parallel there with Romney, though I still don't think it turns into much of a smoking gun.

skullkrusher: VulpesVulpes: Your comparison was Steve Jobs' leave of absence. That was asserted to prove your point that a CEO often does nothing in the day-to-day operations of a company. My point was that if the job of CEO had no duties, why would Steve Jobs need to appoint someone to take over his day-to-day duties? Ergo, your comparison is invalid. Pick a different one.

again, if Steve Jobs can be CEO of Apple but not actually perform the duties of CEO, it doesn't matter to the point that he delegated his duties to another.
It proves that a person can have the title of CEO and not do anything.
The comparison is completely valid - it just shoots your point to shiat so you gotta pretend to dislike it.

No, it really doesn't, so let me put it differently. Was Romney running Bain before he left in 1999? If so, then when he left, who ran Bain? See, simple question. Who was "The Guy" who made those final decisions? In your comparison (Jobs) it was Tim Cook. Who was the "Tim Cook" of Bain? Or are we supposed to believe that it was left to the anarchy of some "Self-Organizing" upper management?

skullkrusher: you said the opposite of that but you then give CEOs a set of duties "the one person who makes executive decision[sic]. Interesting. If you don't make those executive decisions, then you're not the CEO cuz Lenny sez so

Yes, because Lenny says so. And when Lenny says so, companies like major oil and gas producers listen and pay me great amounts of money, because business process design for large corporations is Lenny's lifelong gig, dig?

Lenny also linked to the definition of CEO, which, surprise surprise, said pretty much the same thing Lenny had said -- that a CEO is the Chief Executive, with specific duties and goals assigned by the documented processes, but that whatever those specific goals and duties beyond the basic definition, the CEO is the executive officer.

If you do not have the role of executive officer, you are not the executive officer. This is basic Socrates, dude.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: No it really wasn't ethical. Jobs knew he was never coming back. He knew that he was terminal at the time he took the leave. Retaining the title was nothing more than ego, and a means of hiding the truth from investors.

No investors were fooled. Apple didn't even blink the day he died.

So who was the big cheese at Bain? Name please!

Philip Francis Queeg: No it really wasn't ethical. Jobs knew he was never coming back. He knew that he was terminal at the time he took the leave. Retaining the title was nothing more than ego, and a means of hiding the truth from investors.

The LOAs were years before his retirement. The last time he left, he actually appointed Cook as permanent CEO.

Noam Chimpsky: Wouldn't Romney be lying if he claimed that he ran the company after he left to do the olympics?

Not if he actually did it. He's claimed he didn't run the company, however SEC filings from that time list him as the CEO of Bain. The question should then be: Who was running Bain and how much did Romney know about day-to-day operations or large strategic shifts in the company that happened during this time? I personally find it hard to believe that he just walked away from the company like that and had no involvement whatsoever immediately, then 3 years later decided he had retired from Bain.

Ok, this is retarded, because what a third party calls anybody else doesn't make it true. If I introduce my dog as a serial rapist, that doesn't make my dog a serial rapist, it just makes me an idiot.

All that aside, and the point of him also being sole director and not merely CEO etc. and so forth also aside:

skullkrusher: There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't delegate authority to some of his senior VPs.

If you're in a position to delegate, you're in a position of authority, period. The delegation begins when you say it begins, and ends when you say it ends. That's absolute authority. It means that you're a position to stop whatever needs stopping. If he had the authority to delegate responsibility, then he had the authority to end whatever that delegation of responsibility caused.