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 11:43:24 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: 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.


in this case, it would come down on Romney as controlling person unless he could prove that he had absolutely no knowledge of the bad actions. In the case of Apple, Cook was not named CEO on SEC filings until he officially assumed the title. When he was "acting CEO", Jobs name was still on record as CEO despite the fact that he was not getting his CEO on
 
2012-07-18 11:45:16 PM  

Pharque-it: 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.


skullkrusher: 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


Oh, so you wanted to stomp your feet and make a childish spectacle of yourself rather than reading the thread? Yeah... *I* am the "stupid" one.
 
2012-07-18 11:46:26 PM  

unit63: 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?


logic ain't your strong suit?
 
2012-07-18 11:46:29 PM  

Spaz-master: Yeah, forget the failed economy and the complete disaster we have now...


So vote Republican so we can see how much worse they can make it with control of all three branches again! Yay, I forgot all these economic problems were started by Barack Obama taking the Oath of Office!
 
2012-07-18 11:47:10 PM  

Spaz-master: [floridadeathmetal.com image 300x268]
Yeah, forget the failed economy and the complete disaster we have now...


OMG, totes! 0bama is in over his head. Mitt Romney's experience as an empty-suit will simultaneously improve the economy, vanquish America's enemies, and repeal Romney Obamacare. November can't come fast enough! We're saved!
 
2012-07-18 11:47:36 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: 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.


Nevermind all the nonsense between HuffPo and FactCheck. I have not been paying the slightest heed to it, because it doesn't matter who said what when. The only facts that matter are:

1. If Romney was in fact running day to day operations at Bain while he was at Salt Lake City, then he is lying to the American people.
2. If Romney was in fact NOT running day to day operations at Bain when the SEC filing was made, he falsified documents to the SEC.

It makes no difference who said what on an Internet news site. What matter is which statement is true.
 
2012-07-18 11:48:13 PM  

Brick-House: 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.


Any examples of what he specifically has farked up so badly? Like maybe something that has happened while he's been President?
 
2012-07-18 11:51:30 PM  

InvertedB: 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.


Didn't he own part or all of the company? Obviously he would keep tabs on things, like all owners do, but if he put others in charge of the day to day operations than he'd be lying if he said he was in charge of day to day operations. But I don't think he gets to claim that he was totally unaware of offshoring and had he known he would have stopped it.

I don't know that CEO has much meaning in a private company like Bain. The owner can call himself anything he wants.
 
2012-07-18 11:52:01 PM  

skullkrusher: in this case, it would come down on Romney as controlling person unless he could prove that he had absolutely no knowledge of the bad actions.


It's a little more than that. He has to demonstrate that not only didn't he, but that no reasonable person could have known. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALA" does prevent you from having any knowledge whatsoever of bad actions, but no reasonable person would do that, and anybody looking for a finding of fault would tell you that it could have been avoided if you'd taken your fingers out of your ears and done your job. "I was in a coma at the time"... that's pretty reasonable. "I was being actively mislead by those conspiring to commit these actions" with a demonstration thereof, pretty reasonable too.

Taking your hands off the steering wheel isn't really a reasonable argument on why you're not liable for a car going out of control, because anybody would tell you to just put them back on.
 
2012-07-18 11:52:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Dr. Mojo PhD: 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.

Nevermind all the nonsense between HuffPo and FactCheck. I have not been paying the slightest heed to it, because it doesn't matter who said what when. The only facts that matter are:

1. If Romney was in fact running day to day operations at Bain while he was at Salt Lake City, then he is lying to the American people.
2. If Romney was in fact NOT running day to day operations at Bain when the SEC filing was made, he falsified documents to the SEC.

It makes no difference who said what on an Internet news site. What matter is which statement is true.


ehhhh... 1 is true. 2 is not so cut and dry. The document which states he was done with his active role at Bain in 1999 was a filing with the OGE and it wasn't really a material assertion since the purpose of the filing was to bring potential current conflicts of interest to light. Whether he left Bain in 1999 or 2002 doesn't really matter to what his current involvement is.

What it IS a case of it Romster wanting to A) run on being a good businessman while denying any involvement in some of Bain's best business decisions and B) Romney being ultimately responsible for everything Bain Cap did until his "official" retirement in 2002 regardless of the other circumstances
 
2012-07-18 11:52:35 PM  
Going by Romney's "ruse" statement and the fact that he appeared to have never officially declared an acting CEO during his absence I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Romney never relinquished control of BC the way he was supposed to and said he did.
 
2012-07-18 11:53:15 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: skullkrusher: in this case, it would come down on Romney as controlling person unless he could prove that he had absolutely no knowledge of the bad actions.

It's a little more than that. He has to demonstrate that not only didn't he, but that no reasonable person could have known. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALA" does prevent you from having any knowledge whatsoever of bad actions, but no reasonable person would do that, and anybody looking for a finding of fault would tell you that it could have been avoided if you'd taken your fingers out of your ears and done your job. "I was in a coma at the time"... that's pretty reasonable. "I was being actively mislead by those conspiring to commit these actions" with a demonstration thereof, pretty reasonable too.

Taking your hands off the steering wheel isn't really a reasonable argument on why you're not liable for a car going out of control, because anybody would tell you to just put them back on.


well yeah, "good faith" defense, I think is what it's called
 
2012-07-18 11:53:31 PM  

Uzzah: 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.


Yep. Although, to say that he would have to on some level admit that just like people have to get left behind for the company to get mean and lean, so would some American's have to acceptably fall through the cracks with that approach to the government. And that's fine. I can respect someone saying that the needs of the whole are best served by trimming the fat (in this case the fat being the poor and useless - letting them rot instead of a safety net). I just wish they'd stop pretending you can eliminate all the safety nets while at the same time pretending nobody is going to hit the ground hard.
 
2012-07-18 11:54:37 PM  

InvertedB: Spaz-master: Yeah, forget the failed economy and the complete disaster we have now...

So vote Republican so we can see how much worse they can make it with control of all three branches again! Yay, I forgot all these economic problems were started by Barack Obama taking the Oath of Office!


No, write in somebody who isn't even running!
Or teach them a lesson by staying home. You think the politicians didn't do enough for you before, when you were almost guaranteed to vote for guy X? Wait until he knows nothing he does will get your vote. That'll get him on board!
 
2012-07-18 11:54:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: Dr. Mojo PhD: 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.

Nevermind all the nonsense between HuffPo and FactCheck. I have not been paying the slightest heed to it, because it doesn't matter who said what when. The only facts that matter are:

1. If Romney was in fact running day to day operations at Bain while he was at Salt Lake City, then he is lying to the American people.
2. If Romney was in fact NOT running day to day operations at Bain when the SEC filing was made, he falsified documents to the SEC.

It makes no difference who said what on an Internet news site. What matter is which statement is true.

ehhhh... 1 is true. 2 is not so cut and dry. The document which states he was done with his active role at Bain in 1999 was a filing with the OGE and it wasn't really a material assertion since the purpose of the filing was to bring potential current conflicts of interest to light. Whether he left Bain in 1999 or 2002 doesn't really matter to what his current involvement is.

What it IS a case of it Romster wanting to A) run on being a good businessman while denying any involvement in some of Bain's best business decisions and B) Romney being ultimately responsible for everything Bain Cap did until his "official" retirement in 2002 regardless of the other circumstances


www.reactionface.info
 
2012-07-18 11:57:45 PM  
as a man running on his business savvy, how do you not say "FARK YEAH!" when asked if you were involved in this? That's a 20 bagger, Mittens!

chart.finance.yahoo.com
 
2012-07-18 11:59:12 PM  

skullkrusher: Pharque-it: 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.

skullkrusher: 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

Oh, so you wanted to stomp your feet and make a childish spectacle of yourself rather than reading the thread? Yeah... *I* am the "stupid" one.


Yes, you are stupid. You do not even understand the functional title CEO. And "at worst" Romney is a felon, at best a liar. If he claims "a sin of omission", then he is unfit for office. Any office.
 
2012-07-19 12:00:54 AM  

Pharque-it: Yes, you are stupid


no, u.

Pharque-it: You do not even understand the functional title CEO


got a pretty good handle on it, actually. Tell me though, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN???!!! GIVE ME A NAME!
 
2012-07-19 12:01:56 AM  

skullkrusher: in this case, it would come down on Romney as controlling person unless he could prove that he had absolutely no knowledge of the bad actions


No, it comes down to corporate documentation. The corporate docs are going to show when Romney's CEO duties were transferred, if they were. A CEO change usually takes the blessing of the board of directors, but at very minimum, who is authorized to make which decisions is going to be documented. Otherwise, people within the operation don't know who to listen to, and the entire organization is at risk.

If Romney gave up authority to anyone else, it had to be documented. You can not be CEO and Not-CEO at the same time. He could do like Jobs did, and retain certain executive rights while delineating the precise duties he was delegating, so his organization knew who could sign what, but delegation is a CEO function. Even if delegating these things, he is responsible if he is the CEO of record.
 
2012-07-19 12:02:45 AM  
Sadly, this isn't even the biggest thing Romney has lied about during this campaign and yet he is a major party's candidate for President of the United States. What a joke.
 
2012-07-19 12:03:28 AM  
img853.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-19 12:05:22 AM  

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.


And those people would accept full responsibility for those companies and their activities, and not claim they 'left'. right?
 
2012-07-19 12:08:39 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skullkrusher: in this case, it would come down on Romney as controlling person unless he could prove that he had absolutely no knowledge of the bad actions

No, it comes down to corporate documentation. The corporate docs are going to show when Romney's CEO duties were transferred, if they were. A CEO change usually takes the blessing of the board of directors, but at very minimum, who is authorized to make which decisions is going to be documented. Otherwise, people within the operation don't know who to listen to, and the entire organization is at risk.

If Romney gave up authority to anyone else, it had to be documented. You can not be CEO and Not-CEO at the same time. He could do like Jobs did, and retain certain executive rights while delineating the precise duties he was delegating, so his organization knew who could sign what, but delegation is a CEO function. Even if delegating these things, he is responsible if he is the CEO of record.


again, yes, yes and YES.
He WAS still responsible because he WAS CEO of record. That's all that matters here. The SEC has the filings, they have someone as CEO, that someone was Romney. Whether he was actually making the decisions or people he delegated that authority to were does not matter to his title. There doesn't have to be a formal declaration of interim CEO or Joe is in charge of donuts and Suzie has to get the coffee. Mittens was the SOLE owner of the company, President, chairman and CEO. If he wanted to make his slow cousin Steven acting CEO he could have done so without telling anyone anything aside from informing his underlings that Stevie was their new boss. Mitt would still be CEO, though.
 
2012-07-19 12:17:28 AM  
I wonder if the 'occupation' heading on his tax returns say something specific like "CEO Bain", which is why he can't release them. That and the no taxes he probably paid :)
 
2012-07-19 12:19:17 AM  

skullkrusher: again, yes, yes and YES.
He WAS still responsible because he WAS CEO of record. That's all that matters here. The SEC has the filings, they have someone as CEO, that someone was Romney. Whether he was actually making the decisions or people he delegated that authority to were does not matter to his title. There doesn't have to be a formal declaration of interim CEO or Joe is in charge of donuts and Suzie has to get the coffee. Mittens was the SOLE owner of the company, President, chairman and CEO. If he wanted to make his slow cousin Steven acting CEO he could have done so without telling anyone anything aside from informing his underlings that Stevie was their new boss. Mitt would still be CEO, though.


That is not corporate documentation. That is an SEC document.

The corporate docs are going to say "This title has this authority: (list); The next title has this authority: (list), etc.

In some policy, they are going to have a process for updating the names that go into those blanks. If Mitt's name isn't on the list and he signs a new policy, the document controller is going to reject it as being unauthorized. If Mitt signs a check and isn't on the expenditure authorization list, the AP clerk will flag it and not send it out.

If Mitt retained powers like that, he was still CEO and delegating authority. If he gave them up, then it has to say, somewhere, who took over his duties and when.
 
2012-07-19 12:23:46 AM  
True leadership obviously lies in delegation and then abdication of any responsibility for the actions of said delegates. The American people hear CEO and think that that's the guy in charge. We're basically simple folk, intensely distrustful of all the bullsh*t, finagling, and technicalities regularly employed by the corporate world.
 
2012-07-19 12:31:40 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: If Mitt retained powers like that, he was still CEO and delegating authority. If he gave them up, then it has to say, somewhere, who took over his duties and when.


Romney was "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president." That means that even if he delegated the day to day stuff, he was still on the board of directors. If the board didn't like what Bain was doing, then the board could stop it.

Mitt's only publicly acceptable out at this point is to show that, as a director, he voted against the vulture capitalist business methods of Bain. If he says he wasn't at those board meetings, it shows he was not fulfilling his responsibilities as a director. If he voted in FAVOR of outsourcing and bankrupting and whatnot, he can no longer claim that he nothing to do with it.
 
2012-07-19 12:35:03 AM  

quizzical: Mitt's only publicly acceptable out at this point is to show that, as a director, he voted against the vulture capitalist business methods of Bain. If he says he wasn't at those board meetings, it shows he was not fulfilling his responsibilities as a director. If he voted in FAVOR of outsourcing and bankrupting and whatnot, he can no longer claim that he nothing to do with it.


even that won't give him an out. As sole shareholder of the company, he could throw out the entire board if he didn't like what they were doing. The board serves at the whim of the shareholders. Mitt being the only shareholder...
 
2012-07-19 12:37:03 AM  
The fun part is watching Romney straddle the fence on this issue, then run overseas when the heat starts coming down for his disingenuous bullshiat.

No matter how it's sliced, Romney lied. The only real question is to whom did he lie - the American public, or the American government? Either way, he's screwed, which is why he's running overseas - he's really hoping that his campaign folks can somehow spin this into obscurity.

Warms my little heart, it does. This is the man the Republicans want in office - another Dubya, who, when the pressure mounts, lies, dodges, and runs away for photo ops behind the safety of his army of flappers.
 
2012-07-19 12:45:33 AM  

skullkrusher: quizzical: Mitt's only publicly acceptable out at this point is to show that, as a director, he voted against the vulture capitalist business methods of Bain. If he says he wasn't at those board meetings, it shows he was not fulfilling his responsibilities as a director. If he voted in FAVOR of outsourcing and bankrupting and whatnot, he can no longer claim that he nothing to do with it.

even that won't give him an out. As sole shareholder of the company, he could throw out the entire board if he didn't like what they were doing. The board serves at the whim of the shareholders. Mitt being the only shareholder...


Oh yeah - I forgot about shareholders being able to call meetings at any time if they control enough stock.

So, as the only shareholder, Mitt could have called a meeting with himself at any point and tossed himself and any other board members out. In fact, if he really didn't like the direction the company was going, he could have voted to reinstate himself as person in charge of the day to day operations.

Yeah, he's boned.
 
2012-07-19 12:45:50 AM  

quizzical: Romney was "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president." That means that even if he delegated the day to day stuff, he was still on the board of directors. If the board didn't like what Bain was doing, then the board could stop it.


And he could easily have a puppet CEO that did all of his bidding without question, too, giving all the responsibility to the puppet, and all the authority to Mitt, although I wouldn't want to be that puppet CEO.

The point is that if Mitt wasn't involved at the time, there is going to be internal documentation reflecting that. There is going to be a memo or policy revision that says, "From now on, Frank has the authority to sign executive-level authorizations, and Mitt no longer does. Do not accept signatures from Mitt, he is now an ex-employee."

Without that, Frank's signature is going to be rejected as authority in every business process, if checks/balances and best practices are in place. This is big money we're talking about. Nobody in the organization is going to do anything without written authorization and quality records.
 
2012-07-19 12:54:05 AM  
They both get/got six figure salaries. Obama has a meticulus record of his daily activities as Pres., what can Romney show for his duties performed as a CEO?
 
2012-07-19 12:55:49 AM  

skullkrusher: Pharque-it: Yes, you are stupid

no, u.

Pharque-it: You do not even understand the functional title CEO

got a pretty good handle on it, actually. Tell me though, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BAIN???!!! GIVE ME A NAME!


Well, there is a third option, which is that NOBODY was in charge, and that everyone involved knew they were doing such horrific things they were busy hiding behind a wall of plausible deniability and really...nobody was responsible in the same way the German High Command was responsible, because all they had was a memo saying "Deal with it. IF YOU KNOW WHAT WE MEAN."
 
2012-07-19 01:03:56 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skullkrusher: again, yes, yes and YES.
He WAS still responsible because he WAS CEO of record. That's all that matters here. The SEC has the filings, they have someone as CEO, that someone was Romney. Whether he was actually making the decisions or people he delegated that authority to were does not matter to his title. There doesn't have to be a formal declaration of interim CEO or Joe is in charge of donuts and Suzie has to get the coffee. Mittens was the SOLE owner of the company, President, chairman and CEO. If he wanted to make his slow cousin Steven acting CEO he could have done so without telling anyone anything aside from informing his underlings that Stevie was their new boss. Mitt would still be CEO, though.

That is not corporate documentation. That is an SEC document.

The corporate docs are going to say "This title has this authority: (list); The next title has this authority: (list), etc.

In some policy, they are going to have a process for updating the names that go into those blanks. If Mitt's name isn't on the list and he signs a new policy, the document controller is going to reject it as being unauthorized. If Mitt signs a check and isn't on the expenditure authorization list, the AP clerk will flag it and not send it out.

If Mitt retained powers like that, he was still CEO and delegating authority. If he gave them up, then it has to say, somewhere, who took over his duties and when.


To summarize, if you abdicate your CEO responsibilities, you need to formally and publically do so, on the record. If you don't, you're lying to your shareholders and the SEC.
 
2012-07-19 01:08:57 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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


More than one in three Romney voters say they are supporting Romney primarily because they dislike Mr. Obama.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer to 1/2 or 2/3
 
2012-07-19 01:23:38 AM  

PreMortem: They both get/got six figure salaries. Obama has a meticulus record of his daily activities as Pres., what can Romney show for his duties performed as a CEO?


His Cayman Islands account is certainly well kept, I'm sure.
 
2012-07-19 01:27:52 AM  

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.


Sarah Palin is so disappointed with you using that term. Hard to believe some people are so crass and willing to abuse children like Track.
 
2012-07-19 01:56:47 AM  

markie_farkie: The only thing I can think of here that would REALLY be damaging would be that, if his tax records are disclosed, it was discovered that Bain owned several companies that directly benefited from Olympic committee decisions, as in contracts awarded, etc..


Or provided aborted fetus disposal to Olympic athletes.
 
2012-07-19 03:16:17 AM  

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.


You said retarded twice. Is there something you want to tell us?
 
2012-07-19 03:20:04 AM  
It's like Romney is Claire from The Breakfast Club...

kreations.kaptainmyke.com

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-19 03:40:17 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: kronicfeld: 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.

You are correct. This adds nothing to the debate, and, frankly, its immateriality dilutes the actual area of controversy.

Isn't the actual area of controversy him and his campaign saying that he was retired from Bain in 1999? I'm not sure that him being introduced as the CEO of Bain Capital after 1999 isn't immaterial.


What did I miss?

Romney accepted a prestigious hobby job as figurehead of Utah's Olympic games at the beginning of 1999. He has stated repeatedly he subsequently had no direct involvement with nor responsibility for the operations of Bain Capital.

Yet from 1999 through at least 2002 apparently he remained the sole shareholder, CEO, and President of Bain Capital earning six figures every year - a mere six figures, making him a solidly modest low-to-middle-class ordinary American - for what can only be his unique leadership and energy and enterprise and job-creating innovation during a period during which he adamantly asserts he did absolutely nothing whatsoever for Bain Capital.
 
2012-07-19 05:33:49 AM  
Kind of like Mobama's bio indicating that he was born in Kenya? Right? Romney gets a pass too, right?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/17/literary-agents-1991-catalog-surfac e s-with-claim-obama-was-born-in-kenya/
 
2012-07-19 05:53:35 AM  

Mean Daddy: Kind of like Mobama's bio indicating that he was born in Kenya? Right? Romney gets a pass too, right?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/17/literary-agents-1991-catalog-surfac e s-with-claim-obama-was-born-in-kenya/


Damn you're retarded.
 
2012-07-19 06:30:14 AM  

MyRandomName: 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.



You know some very peculiar people indeed if an independent restaurant or bar has a "CEO". That's like a lemonade stand having a Director of Cinematography.
 
2012-07-19 06:42:51 AM  

Spaz-master: Yeah, forget the failed economy and the complete disaster we have now...


Indeed.

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net


/it's not a debt clock it's a countdown until the international bankers run OUT OF TIME
//"Give me control of a nation's money [supply] and I care not who makes the laws." -Rothschild
 
2012-07-19 06:56:42 AM  
So when does Obammy stop throwing mud and start running on his record?

LOL, I know, never.
 
2012-07-19 07:03:39 AM  

shotglasss: So when does Obammy stop throwing mud and start running on his record?

LOL, I know, never.




His record is excellent. If he was a Republican rather than a democrat, you'd be claiming he were the second coming of Washington.
 
2012-07-19 07:11:12 AM  
So is this like the right-w[itch]ing hour?
 
2012-07-19 08:11:50 AM  
Yes, Mitt was at the Olympics, certainly there was no scandal or anything concerning the Olympics.

Is there anything Romney has touched that isn't strewn with corruption?
 
2012-07-19 08:16:06 AM  

shotglasss: So when does Obammy stop throwing mud and start running on his record?

LOL, I know, never.


Have you even heard Obama's record?

/The Al Green cover is dope!

Romney has to try to pretend that Obama has a bad record because there is literally no reason to vote for him beyond antipathy to a Dem in the WH.

Just like you have to try to deflect from Romney's record here because you know it's weaksauce.

Can you even name one good reason to vote for Romney?

/Difficulty: "He's not Obama" doesn't count.
 
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