Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Vic Sage Do you think if the President had a record of successful and popular accomplishments his campaign would still be trying to misrepresent Romney's?
Originally Posted By ecdc And Romney's troubles continue. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674209.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...209.html</a> >>A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."<< A couple of things: Romney can pick his poison - either he's lying or the business he claims he was so successful at setting up is completely incompetent in continuing to list him on documents three years after he left. Second, it's very possible Romney had little to do with Bain and served just an advisory role, so they listed him so he could continue to do that. The problem is Mitt's elastic relationship with the truth. Saying he had nothing whatsoever to do w/ Bain is clearly not true. Why not say, "Hey, it was my company, these were my friends. I occasionally offered advice, but I certainly wasn't working there the way the Obama camp wants to portray."
Originally Posted By Vic Sage "A couple of things: Romney can pick his poison - either he's lying or the business he claims he was so successful at setting up is completely incompetent in continuing to list him on documents three years after he left. Second, it's very possible Romney had little to do with Bain and served just an advisory role, so they listed him so he could continue to do that. The problem is Mitt's elastic relationship with the truth. Saying he had nothing whatsoever to do w/ Bain is clearly not true." Isn't it possible there is a third option - that Romney remained legally responsible for Bain for several years while he was running the Olympics even though he was no longer managing it? Isn't that what the Washington Post said when it awarded the Obama campaign three pinocchios for making this accusation?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Isn't it interesting how every single post from Vic Sage (including the 21 posts in WE) contains nothing but questions? Isn't it also interesting that Vic only posts when Spokker stops posting? Isn't it terribly annoying to converse with sock puppets blatantly promoting Jewish stereotypes? (My work here is done. Back to lurking. And DFTSP.)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Really, my post of a bunch of letters got removed? Weird." You're the deletion. I get deleted so much when I saw that this morning I thought "oh crap. now what did I do?" and I couldn't think of what it might be. I thought my last post here was earlier than that. Apparently I'm right.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Isn't it interesting how every single post from Vic Sage (including the 21 posts in WE) contains nothing but questions?" Which is what I meant earlier by not being clever. I caught on right away. Whatever or whoever he or she is, it's only here to annoy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Second, it's very possible Romney had little to do with Bain and served just an advisory role, so they listed him so he could continue to do that. The problem is Mitt's elastic relationship with the truth. Saying he had nothing whatsoever to do w/ Bain is clearly not true. Why not say, "Hey, it was my company, these were my friends. I occasionally offered advice, but I certainly wasn't working there the way the Obama camp wants to portray."> The problem - as so often with Romney - is that elastic relationship with the truth as you put it so well; the fact that he says different things to different people depending on what his goal is at the time. When running for Gov. in 2002, he was questioned about his eligibility to run at all since he'd been living in Utah for the prior 3 years. He insisted that he should still be considered a MA resident, and that in fact he returned to MA periodically for "business reasons," (his words) and mentioned that he sat in on board meetings of Bain. So that right there tells you he didn't have absolutely nothing to do with Bain. When it served his interests to establish residency he insisted he did still have a relationship with Bain during this period. In his hastily arranged press conferences the other day he said he had NOTHING to do with Bain during this period - "in any way." As so often in the past, he is trying to have things both ways. Or multiple ways. And hoping he can smudge the edges enough to get away with it. I'm perfectly willing to accept that he was busy with the Olympics during this period, and didn't have much to do with day-to-day decisions. Fine. If he'd SAY that. But no. He says he had nothing to do with Bain - "in any way" - which strains credibility to put it mildly. The guy was still the owner, sole stockholder, and CEO. If he didn't at least keep tabs and know the outlines of what Bain was doing, he'd be a lousy CEO. Moreover, he was still liable financially and legally for what Bain was doing... you think he'd simply let others make all the decisions without keeping ANY tabs? He'd have to be an idiot. So of course he kept tabs and served in an advisory position, at the least. But Romney won't say that... that others made the everyday decisions, but I was still involved, sat in board meetings, and kept tabs on my company as any astute CEO would... because that then makes him partly responsible for all the outsourcing that accelerated during this period, which he must at the very least have known was going on. And he wants to take ZERO responsibility for that. Plus, of course, there was that China investment from 1998, when he was unquestionably calling the shots.
Originally Posted By Vic Sage "He insisted that he should still be considered a MA resident, and that in fact he returned to MA periodically for "business reasons," (his words) and mentioned that he sat in on board meetings of Bain." Did he actually specify Bain? Wasn't he also on other boards? Didn't he also say he returned for family occasions?
Originally Posted By Vic Sage "Romney won't say that... that others made the everyday decisions, but I was still involved, sat in board meetings, and kept tabs on my company as any astute CEO would... because that then makes him partly responsible for all the outsourcing that accelerated during this period, which he must at the very least have known was going on. And he wants to take ZERO responsibility for that." Has the President taken responsibility for the outsourcing done by companies that were given stimulus money by his administration?
Originally Posted By ecdc And now Romney's campaign is saying he retired "retroactively" from Bain. Now that is some excellent spinning. If this is so straight forward, why on earth are Romney spokespeople saying something so patently ridiculous?
Originally Posted By Vic Sage What is patently ridiculous about something that matches all the evidence?
Originally Posted By Vic Sage Isn't the most logical explanation is that Romney remained legally responsible for Bain for several years while he was running the Olympics even though he was no longer managing it? Isn't that what the Washington Post said when it awarded the Obama campaign three pinocchios for claiming there was anything wrong with what was done?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And now Romney's campaign is saying he retired "retroactively" from Bain.<< That's right up there with self-deportation. I get that some people will vote for anyone against Obama. And that's what Romney's counting on. But Romney's wormy CEO-speak is pretty impossible to defend or support, and this is exactly why the Parade of Crazies in the Republican primaries lasted so long -- they really wanted anyone but Mitt.
Originally Posted By Vic Sage If Romney is so bad, why do the Democrats have to keep making up stuff about him?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Did he actually specify Bain? > Yes he did. <Has the President taken responsibility for the outsourcing done by companies that were given stimulus money by his administration?> Examples, please? And in the unlikely event you have any, were they given money specifically TO outsource? And did the president benefit personally? (Cheap questions are easy).
