Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Jul 17, 2012.
Here is a timeline of his activities. You have to decide whether he was actively involved or not.
Nobody cares. It's a non issue.
Been proven to be a lie multiple times.
But I understand why democrats can't talk about the performance of the zero.
Zero...couldn't be much more descriptive name for Obama and his performance.:thumbs:
From what I understand, he retired rectroactively. He had no active role past 1999...and anyone who has started a business knows the red tape and paperwork issues involved. Obama wouldn't know...we have no record of his history or how he made his millions.
Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion
It's unimportant. You can literally do this for almost every member of Congress that has considerable wealth going into their own freshman terms. Corporate relations and boards have unique functions that most Americans might not completely appreciate because of their lack of exposure to them. Ironically most Americans would love to be on them...part of the hypocrisy of this kind of criticism.
If we look at the rise to power of any of our elected leaders you'll find similar patterns...including President Obama.
I don't care what Romney did with Bain. Part of a free market system that is sustainable and effective is a kind of "creative destruction" (Trumpeter's term) that moves resources from obsolete market sectors and into new ones. I don't blame the executives at Bain, they were being faithful to their principles. In fact it is reasonable to say they created more jobs than they ended. Also, the companies they were creating and modifying are probably stronger because of it. One of the unhappy truths of free markets is that you have treat them like a plant that is pruned and given fertilizer (and we know where that comes from) in order for it to be deeply rooted and grow tall.
And here is the timeline that crabby keeps ignoring...
You decide if crabby is disingenuous or not...
•Bain Capital sold off 40 percent of its shares in Stericycle in 2001 and sold the rest by 2004.
•Stericycle apparently began contracting with abortion clinics in 2007.
I would rather have a successful businessman as President than a flunkie community organizer who sucked from the taxpayers and never started even a lemonade stand or done anything else productive. The zero is a loser who needs to be booted.
We can't create any kind of timeline for Obama...
Because from his birth forward they won't release any records. :laugh:
You realize that those SEC filings are typically boilerplate documents and copy-and-paste jobs, right?
Yes, and if a CEO has really left his name should have been taken off. Business 101. What new CEO would not have his name on the filing?
Who was really running the company?
Has Obama done anything other than run his mouth?
Um...Steve Jobs, 2009? It's called a "leave of absence"....
But, only people who have actually participated in the business world understand what a leave of absence is....
Here ya go...
Shareholder and CEO don't mean "control".
Also when it was pointed out that Obama cheated on his taxes - weren't you one of the few that were claiming that signing his tax return didn't mean that he actually knew what was in it?
A TROLL answer if I ever saw one.
This is really a non issue even if true. Nothing but a smoke screen by the whitehouse.
Was Steve Jobs name on the SEC filings during his 'leave of absence'?
That is the whole point. If we must create timelines, I am more interested in what Romney did as governor of MA, since that more closely relates to the duties of President. Bain is apples and oranges.
I do not think anyone here is thrilled with Romney, but this is what we have to deal with, and the only chance of getting rid of Obama. It is not a real good chance at that.
You are OFF TOPIC!!!
Steve Jobs is not the topic!!
For both the leaves of absence in 2009 and the one in 2011 -- Yes.
-- Edited for clarification:
Two leaves of absence. One in 2009, one in 2011. For both, Jobs remained listed in all SEC documents as CEO. The difference being, Jobs, in his announcements for his leaves of absence, made it quite clear that he was retaining full control of the company. Romney, on the other hand, made it quite clear that he was focusing on his duties as governor.