Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you don't understand is the SEC documents concern the companies that Bain took over, not Bain itself. Therefore those documents are fraudulent if Romney was not involved. If Romney was involved, those SEC documents are not fraudulent but Romney was fully aware and instrumental in outsourcing of these companies which is noted on the very same SEC documents.
Would you care to take a look at one of these SEC documents showing Romney listed as sole CEO and outsourcing? I will be more than happy to post for you.
You have no understanding of how long it takes to unwind your position in a corporation as complicated as Bain. The key is that he was in a passive position.
It is astonishing that the President is a Bainer. Can you imagine McCain demanding Obama's birth certificate? It is over for Obama
Apples and oranges lol. Romney is toast and you know it!! Why is he refusing to release on 2 years worth of tax records? All presidential candidates release at least 5+ years. Can't wait for Obama to expose him for the fraud that he is during the upcoming presidential debates.
It seems fairly clear that Romney did not have a significant managing role to play in Bain after 1999 based on the recollections of former Bain people. Let's credit them with being correct.
BUT - IF they are correct, the there are lots of SEC Documents filed that are False. And sworn testimony. And Financial filings with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These all show Romney to have been a managing partner/sole owner/ sole director, etc. of Bain into 2002. OOPS. Typo? Two Typos? Three Typos? Lawyer Misspoke?
Unlikely. Having filed/been signatory to many SEC documents over the years, I can tell you that several layers of review go into those documents before filing them. Many people are given the opportunity to catch errors.
So then which is correct? The sworn filings & testimony given back in 2002, or recollections made over ten years later?
They cannot BOTH be correct.
As someone posted earlier, SO WHAT if Romney did or did not run Bain during those years. That in & of itself doesn't matter. Big deal. It was a private company so they could do as they pleased within the bounds of the law. But what does matter is the filing of potentially false & misleading documents, if they are so.
Did He or Didn't He?
For those that can only understand simple things:
Today there are 128,530 people working at Staples, Sports Authority, Bright Horizons and Steel Dynamics. These companies would probably not exist if it wasn't for the support Bain Capital provided for them. This is what capitalism is about. Providing opportunity for viable businesses (and individuals) to excel. Romney has a lot to be proud of. What is wrong with having a president that is a successful businessman and knows how to turn around a struggling business, or country.
What is wrong with Romney being a complete flip-flopper ? You'll never trust anything he says or does because he doesn't even believe what he says or does. How can you trust a such a wishy-washy person in the White House ? He lied about not being at Bain when jobs were outsourced. How can you
trust a liar ? Romney will only benefit America's wealthy and he would hurt the middle class and the poor. This is definitely not what our country needs now.
We re-state our conclusion that “some of the claims in the [recent Obama] ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.” And we suggest that should Obama campaign officials discover any actual evidence that Romney personally participated in any management decisions at Bain after February of 1999, they should produce it to a federal prosecutor.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
If libs are "Bainers", does that mean ’wingers are "No-Bainers"...?
Lately ’wingers have been desperately trying to stem the damage from the attacks on Romney and his ties to Bain, especially during the periods when Bain outsourced a lot of the jobs from companies they acquired. Taking a cue from their own widely derided Birther phenomenon, lately the wingnuts have been referring to all the folks who aren’t buying Romney’s explanations, as "Bainers".
Which begs the question... does that mean the folks who have no problem with Bain, are "No-Bainers"?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
huh?!
If libs are "Bainers", does that mean ’wingers are "No-Bainers"...?
