If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Mitt Romney: No, I wasn't the CEO of Bain. I was at the Olympics. The Olympics: Check it out, we've got Mitt Romney, the CEO of Bain Capital (w/ video)   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 239
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, CEO, olympics, Bain Capital  
•       •       •

6190 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jul 2012 at 9:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



239 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-18 10:57:43 PM  

VulpesVulpes: No, it really doesn't, so let me put it differently. Was Romney running Bain before he left in 1999?


yes

VulpesVulpes: See, simple question. Who was "The Guy" who made those final decisions?


I don't know. Do you see how he could have still been CEO and been on leave from the company? Regardless of how he delegated authority, you understand how this is possible?

VulpesVulpes: 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?


Yes, Apple had an interim CEO. That is not what allowed Jobs to retain his title.
 
2012-07-18 10:58:36 PM  
He still gets addressed as Governor sometimes, too. BFD.
 
2012-07-18 10:59:09 PM  

skullkrusher: GameSprocket: 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.

"controlling person" is a securities law related term - it does refer to the fact that the majority (100%) shareholder and as a result can be liable for wrongdoings by the firm even if he is not directly responsible. It does not mean he is captain of the ship. There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't delegate authority to some of his senior VPs. Seriously, of all the actual shiat to nail Romney for, this is easily the most ridiculous.


While I agree that the topic is somewhat silly, it is causing Romney to implode. Also, while the definition for "controlling person" has more to do with the ability to dictate the course of a company than whether that ability was used, listing someone as CEO, sole stockholder and the controlling person for a corporation implies quite a lot.

You are getting awfully close to a "I didn't kill him, the bullet I fired killed him" type argument. Semantic arguments are not going to make for a good ad campaign. I don't think there is anything going on that actually warrants any legal action.

1.bp.blogspot.com
Bain Capital, you say? Governor Romney has never heard of it. Who told you that the Governor was involved? I'm not being defensive, you're being defensive.
 
2012-07-18 10:59:31 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: If he had the authority to delegate responsibility, then he had the authority to end whatever that delegation of responsibility caused.


CORRECT! Romney is ultimately responsible for any ethical decisions Bain made while he was on leave because he was, as mentioned before, the "controlling person" and as such, he could have put an end to whatever his officers decided to do.

This of course is irrelevant to whether he could have retained his title as CEO while being on leave and not naming an interim CEO.
 
2012-07-18 11:02:15 PM  

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.


Failure does not excuse the attempt to decieve.
 
2012-07-18 11:04:01 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: 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?


yet you've never heard of a CEO taking a leave of absence? If the person who is the chief executive decisionmaker decides to take a break for a period of time, he may no longer be called CEO... why? Because Wikipedia says what CEO is?

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


and again, this is easily proven false by any CEO who has taken a leave while retaining his or her title.
 
2012-07-18 11:04:28 PM  

skullkrusher: Dr. Mojo PhD: If he had the authority to delegate responsibility, then he had the authority to end whatever that delegation of responsibility caused.

CORRECT! Romney is ultimately responsible for any ethical decisions Bain made while he was on leave because he was, as mentioned before, the "controlling person" and as such, he could have put an end to whatever his officers decided to do.

This of course is irrelevant to whether he could have retained his title as CEO while being on leave and not naming an interim CEO.


So then he was responsible.
 
2012-07-18 11:04:39 PM  

skullkrusher: Yes, Apple had an interim CEO. That is not what allowed Jobs to retain his title.


Jobs took three leaves of absence, in 2004 and 2009. Each time, he stated the reason he was leaving (cancer), the amount of time he thought he'd be absent, and appointed an acting CEO with the blessing of the Board of Directors..

In late 2011, he resigned when he realized he wasn't going to make it. He was no longer CEO at that point. Noone was mislead at any time, and everything was done in accordance with established company policy.
 
2012-07-18 11:05:38 PM  

GameSprocket: You are getting awfully close to a "I didn't kill him, the bullet I fired killed him" type argument. Semantic arguments are not going to make for a good ad campaign. I don't think there is anything going on that actually warrants any legal action.


that's not the case at all - as I've said, Mittens is responsible for what Bain did because failure to prevent them from taking actions he now wants to distance himself from is at best a sin of omission
 
2012-07-18 11:05:58 PM  

skullkrusher: VulpesVulpes: No, it really doesn't, so let me put it differently. Was Romney running Bain before he left in 1999?

yes

VulpesVulpes: See, simple question. Who was "The Guy" who made those final decisions?

I don't know. Do you see how he could have still been CEO and been on leave from the company? Regardless of how he delegated authority, you understand how this is possible?

VulpesVulpes: 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?

Yes, Apple had an interim CEO. That is not what allowed Jobs to retain his title.


I absolutely accept that someone can reatin the title of CEO while on leave and have no duties. This is not the argument. The argument is Did Romney do that. My assertion is that somebody had to be running the company (like Tim Cook ran Apple when Jobs was away). The evidence from the SEC filings says it was Romney. He says he did not. So who did?

If the answer is "Nobody, it just ran itself," then I'm going to call bullshiat and believe the SEC filing over anything you or Romney tell me.
 
2012-07-18 11:06:04 PM  

GameSprocket: Bain Capital, you say? Governor Romney has never heard of it. Who told you that the Governor was involved? I'm not being defensive, you're being defensive.


Holy shiat, there's a blast from the past. Well done, sir!
 
2012-07-18 11:06:23 PM  

skullkrusher: Dr. Mojo PhD: If he had the authority to delegate responsibility, then he had the authority to end whatever that delegation of responsibility caused.

CORRECT! Romney is ultimately responsible for any ethical decisions Bain made while he was on leave because he was, as mentioned before, the "controlling person" and as such, he could have put an end to whatever his officers decided to do.

This of course is irrelevant to whether he could have retained his title as CEO while being on leave and not naming an interim CEO.


So, what I'm taking away from this is that you're saying Romney is responsible for Bain's offshoring since he appointed whoever allowed it, but you take exception to him being called the CEO of the company?
 
2012-07-18 11:07:40 PM  

skullkrusher: yet you've never heard of a CEO taking a leave of absence? If the person who is the chief executive decisionmaker decides to take a break for a period of time, he may no longer be called CEO... why? Because Wikipedia says what CEO is?


If you are on leave of absence, you are not the CEO, because you are making no decisions for the company. During those times, the person appointed to take your place is the CEO.

You are a person who has the option of reestablishing himself as CEO at the end of the leave.
 
2012-07-18 11:08:50 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skullkrusher: Yes, Apple had an interim CEO. That is not what allowed Jobs to retain his title.

Jobs took three leaves of absence, in 2004 and 2009. Each time, he stated the reason he was leaving (cancer), the amount of time he thought he'd be absent, and appointed an acting CEO with the blessing of the Board of Directors..

In late 2011, he resigned when he realized he wasn't going to make it. He was no longer CEO at that point. Noone was mislead at any time, and everything was done in accordance with established company policy.


and Mittens resigned from his position as CEO in 2002 after his leave which began in 99. The now famous "retroactive retirement". He took his leave - what he called "part time" at the time, to work on the Olympics with the intent of returning to Bain in an active, fulltime role. That never happened so he officially retired in 2001 (or 02, I forget)
 
2012-07-18 11:09:31 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: If you are on leave of absence, you are not the CEO, because you are making no decisions for the company. During those times, the person appointed to take your place is the CEO.


this is completely false.
 
2012-07-18 11:09:46 PM  

skullkrusher: GameSprocket: You are getting awfully close to a "I didn't kill him, the bullet I fired killed him" type argument. Semantic arguments are not going to make for a good ad campaign. I don't think there is anything going on that actually warrants any legal action.

that's not the case at all - as I've said, Mittens is responsible for what Bain did because failure to prevent them from taking actions he now wants to distance himself from is at best a sin of omission


Never mind, you already answered my question. What a shiat storm of a thread over a title distinction. It's a battle over whether he's responsible because he said to do it or he's responsible because he didn't say not to do it... what a waste of effort.
 
2012-07-18 11:11:11 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: GameSprocket: Bain Capital, you say? Governor Romney has never heard of it. Who told you that the Governor was involved? I'm not being defensive, you're being defensive.

Holy shiat, there's a blast from the past. Well done, sir!


Meh, I didn't get the delivery right. It has been a long damn time since I've seen it.
 
2012-07-18 11:11:20 PM  

InvertedB: skullkrusher: Dr. Mojo PhD: If he had the authority to delegate responsibility, then he had the authority to end whatever that delegation of responsibility caused.

CORRECT! Romney is ultimately responsible for any ethical decisions Bain made while he was on leave because he was, as mentioned before, the "controlling person" and as such, he could have put an end to whatever his officers decided to do.

This of course is irrelevant to whether he could have retained his title as CEO while being on leave and not naming an interim CEO.

So, what I'm taking away from this is that you're saying Romney is responsible for Bain's offshoring since he appointed whoever allowed it, but you take exception to him being called the CEO of the company?


Yes, he is responsible for anything Bain did as the person who could have converted it into a bakery if he wanted to at any time prior to 2002,
I have no exception to him being called the CEO of the company during his leave. He WAS the CEO of Bain during that time. I am having an academic argument about whether a person can be a CEO and not have an active role in the company. Of farking course they can
 
2012-07-18 11:11:52 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skullkrusher: Yes, Apple had an interim CEO. That is not what allowed Jobs to retain his title.

Jobs took three leaves of absence, in 2004 and 2009. Each time, he stated the reason he was leaving (cancer), the amount of time he thought he'd be absent, and appointed an acting CEO with the blessing of the Board of Directors..

In late 2011, he resigned when he realized he wasn't going to make it. He was no longer CEO at that point. Noone was mislead at any time, and everything was done in accordance with established company policy.


Theer was a leave of absense in the months prior to the resignation in 2011.

Team,

At my request, the board of directors has granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health. I will continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company.

I have asked Tim Cook to be responsible for all of Apple's day to day operations. I have great confidence that Tim and the rest of the executive management team will do a terrific job executing the exciting plans we have in place for 2011.

I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can. In the meantime, my family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our privacy.

Steve


I wil admit that the resignation does make my prior condemnation of Jobs on this particular issue rather harsh. Regardless, Jobs is hardly the model of an ethical executive or human.
 
2012-07-18 11:12:35 PM  

InvertedB: skullkrusher: GameSprocket: You are getting awfully close to a "I didn't kill him, the bullet I fired killed him" type argument. Semantic arguments are not going to make for a good ad campaign. I don't think there is anything going on that actually warrants any legal action.

that's not the case at all - as I've said, Mittens is responsible for what Bain did because failure to prevent them from taking actions he now wants to distance himself from is at best a sin of omission

Never mind, you already answered my question. What a shiat storm of a thread over a title distinction. It's a battle over whether he's responsible because he said to do it or he's responsible because he didn't say not to do it... what a waste of effort.


nope, that's not what this is about. He is responsible because regardless of whether he was sleeping under his desk at Bain or didn't even think of Bain during his leave, he was still in the position to take charge and make changes.
 
2012-07-18 11:13:31 PM  

skullkrusher: GameSprocket: You are getting awfully close to a "I didn't kill him, the bullet I fired killed him" type argument. Semantic arguments are not going to make for a good ad campaign. I don't think there is anything going on that actually warrants any legal action.

that's not the case at all - as I've said, Mittens is responsible for what Bain did because failure to prevent them from taking actions he now wants to distance himself from is at best a sin of omission


Yeah, the funny thing is that much of his core demographic would have considered closing the plants to show fiscal discipline. This is what happens when a person's first impulse is to lie.
 
2012-07-18 11:15:43 PM  

VulpesVulpes: The argument is Did Romney do that. My assertion is that somebody had to be running the company (like Tim Cook ran Apple when Jobs was away). The evidence from the SEC filings says it was Romney. He says he did not. So who did?

If the answer is "Nobody, it just ran itself," then I'm going to call bullshiat and believe the SEC filing over anything you or Romney tell me.


Of course it didn't run itself. However, whether Bain, a private equity firm, named an interim CEO or a CEO by committee or turned to reading chicken gizzards for corporate guidance doesn't really matter. Mittens' absence from Bain for the Olympics was enough to get Dems to challenge his eligibility to run for governor in MA - I'd imagine someone was running those board meetings.
 
2012-07-18 11:17:50 PM  

GameSprocket: skullkrusher: GameSprocket: You are getting awfully close to a "I didn't kill him, the bullet I fired killed him" type argument. Semantic arguments are not going to make for a good ad campaign. I don't think there is anything going on that actually warrants any legal action.

that's not the case at all - as I've said, Mittens is responsible for what Bain did because failure to prevent them from taking actions he now wants to distance himself from is at best a sin of omission

Yeah, the funny thing is that much of his core demographic would have considered closing the plants to show fiscal discipline. This is what happens when a person's first impulse is to lie.


regardless of whether Bain's decisions were the right ones from a business perspective, it looks pretty terrible for him to be associated with a company with a fondness for downsizing when he's running for President in a country with 8.5% unemployment. He's probably more worried about the Stericycle connection than anything else though - which is pretty farking scary.
 
2012-07-18 11:18:12 PM  
Using Romney's logic, every time Bush went on vacation to chop brush, he wasn't responsible for how the government was run.

Is that the dodge? "I wasn't actually there, so I'm not responsible for how the company did business - sure, I was on the letterhead as the CEO, and sure, I actually contradict myself throughout my career, leaning on my business acumen with Bain when I thought it made me look good, but running like hell now that Bain makes me look like a despicable vulture capitalist."

What happens if & when this joker becomes President, and the economy takes a nosedive - he takes a vacation, and then claims it's not his fault because he wasn't actually in the Oval Office at the time?

Who in the hell would trust this moron in the White House?
 
2012-07-18 11:18:50 PM  

skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: If you are on leave of absence, you are not the CEO, because you are making no decisions for the company. During those times, the person appointed to take your place is the CEO.

this is completely false.


Bless your heart!

If you're sitting in the passenger seat of your car, are you the Driver?

"Driver" has a definition. It's the person in control of the car. The whole world knows that. If you don't drive the car, you are not the driver. You can call yourself a driver if you wish, but you are not the driver.

During Jobs' absence, every single thing that required a decision or action from the CEO went to his replacement. Jobs could not walk in and sign a major policy or directive change during that time -- he had to be reinstated by the Board of Directors, officially, before he could do anything like that.

Otherwise, he does not have authority -- and without authority, you are not the chief executive officer.

He could reinsert himself into those duties, as he stopped being CEO only temporarily, but if he's not doing anything for the company, he is not CEOing.
 
2012-07-18 11:19:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Theer was a leave of absense in the months prior to the resignation in 2011.


That was the third one I mentioned. I failed to list it.
 
2012-07-18 11:20:02 PM  
Obama personally attacked Romney for saying he left Bain's leadership in 1999 while, during the subsequent three years he spent running the Olympics, signing "an SEC listing that says he was the CEO, chairman, and president of the company." What the president didn't say was that this is a customary practice for CEOs who take a leave of absence from their firms. This is precisely the reason that FactCheck.org found the president's charge misleading while the Washington Post said The "facts essentially exonerate Romney." but okay, you idiots keep on jerking each other off like this is some big goddam deal.
 
2012-07-18 11:25:04 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: If you are on leave of absence, you are not the CEO, because you are making no decisions for the company. During those times, the person appointed to take your place is the CEO.

this is completely false.

Bless your heart!

If you're sitting in the passenger seat of your car, are you the Driver?

"Driver" has a definition. It's the person in control of the car. The whole world knows that. If you don't drive the car, you are not the driver. You can call yourself a driver if you wish, but you are not the driver.

During Jobs' absence, every single thing that required a decision or action from the CEO went to his replacement. Jobs could not walk in and sign a major policy or directive change during that time -- he had to be reinstated by the Board of Directors, officially, before he could do anything like that.

Otherwise, he does not have authority -- and without authority, you are not the chief executive officer.

He could reinsert himself into those duties, as he stopped being CEO only temporarily, but if he's not doing anything for the company, he is not CEOing.


this is mindboggling... If the President is in a coma, who performs his duties? The Vice President. Does that make the President no longer the President? Of course not. Was Tim Cook CEO of Apple prior to Jobs' death? No, he was interim CEO. Why? Because Jobs was CEO even though he wasn't "CEOing"
 
2012-07-18 11:27:08 PM  
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN WHILE ROMNEY WAS ON "LEAVE".
NAME PLEASE!!
 
2012-07-18 11:27:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Team,

At my request, the board of directors has granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health. I will continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company.

I have asked Tim Cook to be responsible for all of Apple's day to day operations. I have great confidence that Tim and the rest of the executive management team will do a terrific job executing the exciting plans we have in place for 2011.

I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can. In the meantime, my family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our privacy.

Steve


Here he is defining duties, not giving them up. He's saying he's retaining that CEO authority, and is making Cook a COO, by definition -- Chief Operating Officer, someone who runs the more routine operations of the company without making executive decisions.
 
2012-07-18 11:27:32 PM  

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


or the recent CBS NYT polls that says he is ahead
 
2012-07-18 11:29:52 PM  

skullkrusher: this is mindboggling... If the President is in a coma, who performs his duties? The Vice President. Does that make the President no longer the President? Of course not. Was Tim Cook CEO of Apple prior to Jobs' death? No, he was interim CEO. Why? Because Jobs was CEO even though he wasn't "CEOing"


You are still confusing titles and definitions.

During the president's incapacitation, the VP becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the United States. He or she will be the person with authority over the executive branch and its responsibilities.

His title is still Vice President of the United States, because that's what the top-level policy -- our Constitution -- calls him as a title.

His function during that time is Chief Executive Officer.
 
2012-07-18 11:31:08 PM  

tjfly: Obama personally attacked Romney for saying he left Bain's leadership in 1999 while, during the subsequent three years he spent running the Olympics, signing "an SEC listing that says he was the CEO, chairman, and president of the company." What the president didn't say was that this is a customary practice for CEOs who take a leave of absence from their firms. This is precisely the reason that FactCheck.org found the president's charge misleading while the Washington Post said The "facts essentially exonerate Romney." but okay, you idiots keep on jerking each other off like this is some big goddam deal.


Maybe Romney shouldn't be going around telling people he wasn't running a company that several other people and the SEC say he was.
 
2012-07-18 11:31:55 PM  

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.


If Obama were the sole owner of a company that actively purchased fetus disposal companies, there would a shiat storm from the Right. This would be true, even if he were in Kenya at the time. They would use it to demonstrate just how pro-abortion Obama is. You know this is true, to say anything else is a frail attempt to hide your cognitive dissonance.

Sole owners are responsible for their companies actions. It's just that simple.
 
2012-07-18 11:31:59 PM  

skullkrusher: regardless of whether Bain's decisions were the right ones from a business perspective, it looks pretty terrible for him to be associated with a company with a fondness for downsizing when he's running for President in a country with 8.5% unemployment.


why? he is running against the person responsible for the 8.5% unemployment (11% if you use the same labor participation rate as when he started).

plus, he is running against the person who is giving taxpayer money, not private money, to companies who are using it to hire people outside the US.

oh, and don't forget he is running against the person who invested in GM and made it a requirement that they cut costs (over 10,000 jobs cut).
 
2012-07-18 11:32:43 PM  

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.


The Unfortunate Implication of your argument is that CEOs are eminently replaceable and completely useless to major corporations, and in fact only exist as aristocratic leeches sucking profit and value out of the economy.

If the company just ran without Romney having ANYTHING to do with running it, either he was so eminently replaceable that some no-name schlub who you can't even name could do as good a job, OR his job was completely unnecessary in the first place and CEOs don't do anything.
 
2012-07-18 11:33:07 PM  

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.


One day, conservatives will realize that if you are either CEO or owner, you are STILL LEGALLY LIABLE for the acts of your agents no matter how much you want to dodge responsibility by saying "Oh, I just put my name on the documents, but my employees were actually running the show!"

Respondeat superior is an ugly term, Fawkes, but it's a binding one.
 
2012-07-18 11:33:39 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skullkrusher: this is mindboggling... If the President is in a coma, who performs his duties? The Vice President. Does that make the President no longer the President? Of course not. Was Tim Cook CEO of Apple prior to Jobs' death? No, he was interim CEO. Why? Because Jobs was CEO even though he wasn't "CEOing"

You are still confusing titles and definitions.

During the president's incapacitation, the VP becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the United States. He or she will be the person with authority over the executive branch and its responsibilities.

His title is still Vice President of the United States, because that's what the top-level policy -- our Constitution -- calls him as a title.

His function during that time is Chief Executive Officer.


aha, so it is possible to have the title of CEO but not to function as the CEO... which is what I've been arguing the whole time
 
2012-07-18 11:34:58 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: 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.


From wiki:

"In August 2011, Jobs resigned as CEO of Apple, but remained with the company as chairman of the company's board."

Maybe that's what you're thinking of. It was after a 7 month leave-of-absence that I assume became permanent when Jobs realized he wasn't coming back.

Regardless, I think the fact that Romney's adviser said that he retired "retroactively" means that he did not consider himself retired when he originally took the leave of absence in 1999. He's responsible for what Bain did from 1999-2002 by establishing an identity for the company, appointing management, and, by all appearances, making certain key decisions as CEO, chairman, controlling interest, etc. I don't think it's possible for someone to honestly believe that Mitt Romney would say that he was unequivocally opposed to outsourcing and was uniquely laser-focused solely on creating american jobs during his tenure at Bain. Just like the data on his job creation record in MA seems to support that he had no ability as an executive to create an unusually significant amount of American jobs.

His strategy going forward should simply be to propose policies, opposed to Obama's, that will improve the country and let voter's decide if they will improve the country. But I think we know why he's not going to do that.
 
2012-07-18 11:35:34 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: regardless of whether Bain's decisions were the right ones from a business perspective, it looks pretty terrible for him to be associated with a company with a fondness for downsizing when he's running for President in a country with 8.5% unemployment.

why? he is running against the person responsible for the 8.5% unemployment (11% if you use the same labor participation rate as when he started).

plus, he is running against the person who is giving taxpayer money, not private money, to companies who are using it to hire people outside the US.

oh, and don't forget he is running against the person who invested in GM and made it a requirement that they cut costs (over 10,000 jobs cut).


I'm not even going to bother with your first two points, but I seriously hope Romney goes after the third since he's the guy who said fark GM. How many jobs would have been cut under Romney's approach? A lot more than 10,000, dumbass. Where'd you get that talking point anyway? You've been throwing it around a lot, I really hope it's something the right-wing derpmill has been spewing today.
 
2012-07-18 11:36:29 PM  

Pharque-it: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN WHILE ROMNEY WAS ON "LEAVE".
NAME PLEASE!!


Mitt Romney of course. He was the CEO.
 
2012-07-18 11:37:57 PM  

TheBigJerk: The Unfortunate Implication of your argument is that CEOs are eminently replaceable and completely useless to major corporations, and in fact only exist as aristocratic leeches sucking profit and value out of the economy.


nope, that's not the implication at all. CEOs can be and are replaced. Except when you own 100% the company you're CEO of, it's kinda hard for people to tell you you can't take a leave from your own company.

TheBigJerk: If the company just ran without Romney having ANYTHING to do with running it, either he was so eminently replaceable that some no-name schlub who you can't even name could do as good a job, OR his job was completely unnecessary in the first place and CEOs don't do anything.


the "no name schlub" was probably a Harvard MBA but yeah, he or whoever was in charge of Bain during the time when Romney was on leave apparently performed well. I share your shock that a high level executive at a multi-billion dollar private equity firm can step in to run it.
 
2012-07-18 11:38:46 PM  

Pharque-it: Pharque-it: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN WHILE ROMNEY WAS ON "LEAVE".
NAME PLEASE!!

Mitt Romney of course. He was the CEO.


you didn't change accounts
 
2012-07-18 11:38:53 PM  

tjfly: This is precisely the reason that FactCheck.org found the president's charge misleading while the Washington Post said


Actually, FactCheck found the President's statements misleading in part because Romney would be committing a felony, which they found not to be credible, at a time before the SEC filings were released:
Romney Committing Felonies?

If the Obama campaign is correct, then Romney is guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, committing a felony. But we don't see evidence of that.

[Source: FactCheck.org July 2]

WaPo then used FactCheck's statements as evidence.
[Source: Washington Post]

When the SEC filings were released, one of Obama's campaigners cited FactCheck's statement that Romney would be a felon or would have lied to the American people.

FactCheck then did a follow-up, omitted to address the or portion of the statement, and then claimed that the Obama campaign's claim that Romney would be a felon was patently false, after having consulted a legal expert -- something they failed to do in their original article -- despite the fact that the Obama campaign was merely repeating FactCheck's earlier claim, and relied on the WaPo article (which relied on the earlier FactCheck article):
But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign's claim that Romney committed a felony.

[Source: FactCheck.org July 12]

In other words, FactCheck stated something FactCheck would later state was false, misattributed this falsehood to the Obama campaign, this falsehood spread to WaPo, and FactCheck used WaPo to later walk back their own claim that Romney would be guilty of a felony while omitting that this was their own claim.

In the end, if FactCheck's July 2 claim is valid, then the Obama campaign did nothing wrong on relying on FactCheck.

If FactCheck's July 12 claim is valid, then their July 2 claim is invalid, and perforce they are not a reliable source, meaning that they're equally unreliable on their July 12 claim as they are on their July 2 claim, and once again the Obama campaign did nothing wrong, since the July 12 article cannot be reliably cited due to FactCheck implicitly admitting that anybody who cites them is "wrong".

So, circular reasoning, bandwagon fallacy [And we wish to note, we're not alone in this judgement. Others include:], etc., etc.

Invalid reasoning is invalid reasoning, unreliability is unreliability, ergo FactCheck's argument, and all arguments which flow from it (to wit, Washington Post), are invalid. This isn't optional, or a subject of debate. They contradicted their own statement and, worse still, attributed the purported falsehood of their statement not to the source from which it originated (themselves), but to an innocent actor who was merely citing them as the authority they constantly present themselves to be.
 
2012-07-18 11:39:09 PM  

skullkrusher: aha, so it is possible to have the title of CEO but not to function as the CEO... which is what I've been arguing the whole time


I said at the onset you can call yourself anything you want. You can call yourself "Love Doctor" if it makes you happy. It doesn't make you a love doctor, it just makes you misleading.

If an IRS or regulatory agent wishes to speak to the CEO, though, you'd better point him toward the person who was actually making decisions at the time, because they're using the standard definition that the rest of the world uses when talking about the person with top authority to make executive decisions.
 
2012-07-18 11:39:34 PM  
floridadeathmetal.com
Yeah, forget the failed economy and the complete disaster we have now...
 
2012-07-18 11:40:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Pharque-it: Pharque-it: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN WHILE ROMNEY WAS ON "LEAVE".
NAME PLEASE!!

Mitt Romney of course. He was the CEO.

you didn't change accounts


Maybe he's traveling.
 
2012-07-18 11:40:18 PM  
Holy crap, by the logic of some of the people in this thread, we shouldn't even have elections for president, just have a permanent White House staff running the executive branch board of directors. You know, like COOs or something.

Or doesn't the title of Chief Executive actually mean anything to you people?
 
2012-07-18 11:40:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Pharque-it: Pharque-it: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN WHILE ROMNEY WAS ON "LEAVE".
NAME PLEASE!!

Mitt Romney of course. He was the CEO.

you didn't change accounts


You are too stupid to answer.
 
2012-07-18 11:41:58 PM  
WHY DOES THIS MATTER??? Even if Obama hadden't farked everything up as bad as he has, this still wouldn't matter. Geeze people, lay off the cool aid a bit.
 
Displayed 50 of 239 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report