Print

[lordfly]

I don't really care either way, I think it's pretty hilarious you guys are going to vote for a guy who can't even be smart about his slimy business practices. I just want to hear your cognitive dissonance on why it's okay that he claims he left Bain in 1999, but was its salaried CEO, major shareholder, and chairman until 2002.

We know it happened, I just want to hear why you don't care about it and how you'll vote for him anyway.

Romney/Batman 2012!

[sammy]

I don't really care either way, I think it's pretty hilarious you guys are going to vote for a guy who can't even be smart about his slimy business practices. I just want to hear your cognitive dissonance on why it's okay that he claims he left Bain in 1999, but was its salaried CEO, major shareholder, and chairman until 2002.

We know it happened, I just want to hear why you don't care about it and how you'll vote for him anyway.

Romney/Batman 2012!

Obama- Biden 2012. Same question.

[marilyn.monroe]

I thought lying was a requirement for a government job.

[old salt]

Old news, very old.  Already been debunked.  Not an issue. 

[marilyn.monroe]

Old news, very old.  Already been debunked.  Not an issue. 

I did read 'felony' in some article. Good thing Ron Paul is still in it.

[marilyn.monroe]

I don't like the tone the campaigns are taking. The stupid politics get America nowhere. I hope Ron Paul does get the nomination, because he will keep it focused on solving the problems.

[Professor H]

Gee we should start a "Why Not Ron Paul" topic   :-)

[lordfly]

Old news, very old.  Already been debunked.  Not an issue. 

Which has been debunked? That he was CEO til 2002? Is that what Hannity told you?

Citation needed.

[LessGovernment]

I don't understand why anyone would even fall for yet another round of this Republican versus Democrat ruse with Romney versus Obama...while our nation is in economic free-fall collapse.

If Romney is the nominee, Obama's re-election is certain.  With all his money, Romney doesn't want the job anyway.

Obama has already demonstrated he will bail out the rich who are way over their heads selling ficticious paper investments, as well as the poor who have been conditioned to refuse to look for work; and when the electorate gets behind the curtain, they will vote for their own SELF-interest - which is - "largesse from the public treasury" ... and that has DESTROYED this Republic just as those who created our paper-money system designed it to.

Obama is a GOOD servant to his handlers; and most of the electorate has been governmentally-educated(Marxist Federal Department of Education) unto total stupidity about our founding principles in that they are SCARED, dependent, and unable now to conjure up enough personal COURAGE to speak out when they finally come to understand that it has been their own CONSENT that has rendered this nation unable to root out the tyranny.

Romney is simply NO alternative, nor does he possess the megalomaniacal attitude to deliver this nation unto international handlers for his own selfish aim; Obama does though...Romney is but an actor playing his role to deceive the blissfully ignorant, yet enslaved.

All who believe Romney would take this bankrupt nation in a different direction(when he doesn't admit this gubbermint has a severe spending problem) has simply been conditioned to vote for their own permanent enslavement to that same gubbermint that generates worthless candidates like him - still ignorantly trusting that liars and crooks have a patriotic bone in their body.

This is how Rome fell...

(1) a great chasm existed between the rich and the poor
(2) the military stopped fighting the Empire's conquests
(3) the central government could no longer draw a revenue from their subjects

#1 is a given.
#2 is proving out to be true because MOST active military support Ron Paul
#3 is OBVIOUS since our real unemployment rate is about 22%, nobody is paying taxes anymore(middle class ain't making it and wealthy people have LEFT the states with their businesses to escape paying taxes) - and the other countries all over the world who OWE US MONEY(foreign aid with strings attached) are defaulting daily, and begging for international bailouts.  And 3rd world countries NEVER pay back.

This is history repeating itself; and people need to WAKE UP! - especially Americans who could research this stuff ALL DAY long, instead they believe we can be "ignorant and free, in a state of civilization" - which as Thomas Jefferson said - "[they] expect what never was and never will be."

With or without Ron Paul, this financial house of cards is going to collapse under the weight of its own deceit and false foundation of paper debt...at least Ron Paul would strike out all of the immoral and unconstitutional the Executive Orders that attack our Liberty...and that would be a START to recover our once great path of patriotism into prosperity undiminished.

The bottom line for THIS election, borrowed from ... The Daily Paul ...is this...

"Romney IS Obama except for two things. #1. Romney is rich. #2. Romney is white.

Those two things alone will satisfy more Republicans of course, but they also signify the only differences,

BOTH Romney and Obama are Harvard educated elitist attorneys. BOTH Romney and Obama are heavily favored, financed and endorsed by Goldman Sachs and the banksters. BOTH Romney and Obama love the military industrial complex, are warmongers, and both revel in the US role of world policeman. Both want to dramatically increase the size of the US government (Romney wants to double the military). Both want to solve the health care crisis with ObomneyCare (Romney INVENTED it for Pete's sake).

These two candidates are virtual CLONES - except Romney is rich and white. And THOSE two factors alone are enough for most Republicans."

http://www.dailypaul.com/244719/fox-news-romney-cant-beat-obama-without-ron-paul

[Collegekid]

Sorry LG, but you're claim that "most" active military support RP without some hard facts is a flat out lie.

Most of my family is in the service, many of my friends are too, and I can't think of a one that has ever mentioned RP to me in a non-jocular way. While my friends and family don't represent "most" of the military I would think that for your claim to be true at least one of the hundred or so I interact with on a normal basis would be a part of that.

If you have facts about that though, feel free to prove me wrong.

[old salt]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/boston-globe-repackages-its-2002-romney-bain-ceo-story-as-breaking-news/

From the link:

The article no longer is online, but references to it linger on the internet.
 
I assume Romney’s explanation has not changed, that he retained the role and duties of CEO, but gave up operational day-to-day control.  That explanation either will fly or not; I think it should as even the new Globe article acknowledges that the Romney’s status was disclosed in SEC filings.
 
Whatever else it was, though, it’s old news repackaged by the same newspaper which first published it a decade ago.

-----------------
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/keeping-up-with-the-bain-obsession.php

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/309354/fact-check-romney-felon-no-hes-not-greg-pollowitz

From this last link:
Now, are there any experts on the drugs laws of Hawaii, California, and New York out there? Before I call the president a felon for his admitted drug use, I want to make sure I’m accurate.

[lordfly]

Now, are there any experts on the drugs laws of Hawaii, California, and New York out there? Before I call the president a felon for his admitted drug use, I want to make sure I’m accurate.

I heard he smoked all the crack in Honolulu. Someone should arrest him.

[lordfly]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/boston-globe-repackages-its-2002-romney-bain-ceo-story-as-breaking-news/

From the link:

The article no longer is online, but references to it linger on the internet.
 
I assume Romney’s explanation has not changed, that he retained the role and duties of CEO, but gave up operational day-to-day control.  That explanation either will fly or not; I think it should as even the new Globe article acknowledges that the Romney’s status was disclosed in SEC filings.
 
Whatever else it was, though, it’s old news repackaged by the same newspaper which first published it a decade ago.

Okay, so the newspaper reported about it a decade ago, therefore it isn't relevant. That's how you're going to spin it. Got it.

I was just wondering. We all like to have facts back up our biases. I read my socialist kenyan muslim blogs, you read your hyperpartisan rightwing "insurrection" blogs. The Kenyan Muslim Socialist Hitlers are hyping it up pretty big, but I guess the other side is going to claim a) it's old news, and b) who cares if he was or wasn't CEO, it's the economy, stupid.

[LetsGoWings]

Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the “key investment professionals” who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, “the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.”

Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999.  Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html

Just because he had the CEO title does not mean he had an active role in management decisions, there are no requirements for the CEO to do that.

People should always question the media when it comes to SEC reports for companies. They may be great at reading them, but many have no idea what exactly they are looking at. Look what happened with GE, everyone thinks they got a 3.2 billion dollar refund because some guy from New York Times misread the financial statements.

[LetsGoWings]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Bain a private partnership LLC? There could be a lot of reasons why Mitt was still listed as the CEO, but not managing the day-to-day activities. Reports indicate that when he took his leave of absence for the Salt Lake City Olympic's there was a lot of turmoil at Bain, so him still being listed as the CEO could have given the other partners and employees an indication he planned on coming back after he was done with Salt Lake City. There were potential for large lawsuits, in the 7-8 figure range, and with Mitt being one of the partners, and one of the largest partners, he would have potentially lost a lot on his share of the partnership. Staying as the CEO was most likely a way to give stability to Bain, and allow time for them to find a good replacement, because no matter how you want to spin it Mitt was/is an amazing businessman.

All the reports I have read state that he was CEO and all that from 1999-2002, but did not have much to say in terms of day-to-day operations. This could have been to avoid passive activity rules if he was going to focus on the Olympics, although I don't think he was too worried about passive activities.