• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney, liar.

JoeTheJuggler said:
Ditto the salary. There was no legal requirement to pay him $100K. What was the business reason for doing so?
Click to expand...

I don't know. That's not my business. I gave possible reasons.

[ETA: Are you saying Romney was trying to skirt the intent of the law in its SEC filings and to mislead investors about who was running the company?]
Click to expand...

Quite the reverse: I'm saying that the SEC filing inclusion was required to satisfy the law, not skirt it. And I have no reason to think any investors were misled. As far as I'm aware, no investors have come forward and complained that they were.

What about Mitt's own statement that he planned to continue to be actively involved in running the company on a part time basis?
Click to expand...

That could have been nothing more than unjustified optimism about how much time the Olympics stuff would take up.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Try to think in terms of a skeptic evaluating any other claim.
Click to expand...
Oh, well, there you go. Really? You know, reasonable people can disagree. I don't claim to know what the truth is. I'm just sharing my thoughts. Had I attacked you personally or cast doubt on your ability to think critically or something else I could understand your response. But that's really uncalled for. And, for the record, I think your argument is nonsense.

Good day.
 
Ziggurat said:
That you are mystified doesn't mean it's not true. Furthermore, your confusion seems to come from a disbelief that they couldn't have done it any other way. But that's not the issue. The issue is what the legal requirements were given the way that they did choose to handle things.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that it's not true. That's because I'm not a lawyer or business expert and don't know for a fact that it isn't true. Since other organizations have had interim CEOs and interim presidents, I am skeptical that there was any legal reason why Romney had to be listed as CEO and president, however I have the capability of changing my mind should someone give me an explanation of why it had to be so.

You are conflating multiple issues. There may have been a business reason not to name an interim CEO. Given that choice, that could have created a legal obligation to continue to list Romney even without any active involvement.
Click to expand...

If there was a business reason to keep listing Romney as the CEO even though he actually wasn't, doesn't that mean that Bain was intentionally misleading investors and clients? If you paid $$$ for a ticket a Phish concert and when they walked out on stage they said "Oh, by the way, Trey Anastacio retired last year, though we still list him as our guitarist. Joe Garageband will be playing guitar tonight.", would you feel cheated?

And what precisely do you consider to be the nature of this responsibility, and why?
Click to expand...

If Romney maintained the roles of CEO and president for the purpose of having a voice in decisions, and this is purely a hypothesis, then his inaction would have constituted an action.
 
Re: claim that McCain got 23 years of Romney's tax returns before opting for Palin as running mate.

RandFan said:
Oh, well, there you go. Really? You know, reasonable people can disagree. I don't claim to know what the truth is. I'm just sharing my thoughts. Had I attacked you personally or cast doubt on your ability to think critically or something else I could understand your response. But that's really uncalled for. And, for the record, I think your argument is nonsense.

Good day.
Click to expand...

I didn't attack you personally in any way. Indeed, I make this plea because I think you are capable of using critical thinking skills on this point.

I'm pointing out that the reasoning that says an unsubtantiated claim is supported by the fact that someone in a position to know has not denied it isn't very good skeptical thinking. [ETA: And for the record, I agreed with you that it isn't proof.]

I'm happy to defend my position on this.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
Do you really think they pay that much attention?
Click to expand...

Or even if they did they might have other motives for not confirming or denying the story. I read no significance whatsoever into the fact that McCain hasn't set the record straight on this so far.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Quite the reverse: I'm saying that the SEC filing inclusion was required to satisfy the law, not skirt it.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that law.

If there is a law requiring a company to tell the SEC who is the CEO, President and controlling person of the company, then I think putting the name of someone who wasn't doing exactly that was at best skirting the law.

ETA: At any rate, even if there is such a law, it most definitely did not require putting Mitt's name in that spot. So the defense that it was merely a legal technicality doesn't wash.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
If there was a business reason to keep listing Romney as the CEO
Click to expand...

You again conflated two issues. I said there might have been a business reason to not appoint an interim CEO. From a business point of view, a CEO might have been unnecessary for the period in question. But the legal obligation (not business reason) to keep a listed CEO could remain, and under those circumstances, why not Romney?

doesn't that mean that Bain was intentionally misleading investors and clients?
Click to expand...

Until I hear about complaints from investors or clients, I have no reason to think that any of them were misled. Since this is an old issue, I'm guessing that there are no such complaints.

If you paid $$$ for a ticket a Phish concert and when they walked out on stage they said "Oh, by the way, Trey Anastacio retired last year, though we still list him as our guitarist. Joe Garageband will be playing guitar tonight.", would you feel cheated?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't feel cheated, because I don't know who Trey is, and I don't listen to Phish so I wouldn't know the difference. But if you felt cheated by such an event, wouldn't you complain?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
ETA: At any rate, even if there is such a law, it most definitely did not require putting Mitt's name in that spot. So the defense that it was merely a legal technicality doesn't wash.
Click to expand...

Why not? Assume for the sake of argument that the law requires someone's name be there, even if the person isn't active? What exactly is wrong with them using Mitt's name under such circumstances, rather than the name of someone else who wasn't actively managing the company?
 
Ziggurat said:
The issue is what the legal requirements were given the way that they did choose to handle things.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You keep trying to frame it that way, but it's not.

Again, the problem the Obama campaign alleges is that Mitt Romney has said on the one hand that he left the company and had no active role in running the company and that he stayed on in a part time basis as someone who has an active role in making key decisions in the company.

The defense that he was listed as CEO as merely a legal requirement does not resolve the problem. As you point out, it's only a legal requirement after the decision has been made to name Romney CEO, President, sole partner and person running the company even though he (purportedly) was not.

So even if that story is true, you have 2 remaining problems: 1) Romney lied when he said he still actively involved on a part time basis in running the company (if you deny that he lied when he said he was not) and 2) they misled the SEC about who was running the company by claiming that Romney was the CEO, President, sole partner and the person running the company.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
As you said, the legal requirement only arises after they made the business decision to pretend Romney was still CEO. [ETA: . . .when he wasn't. As I point out below, this argument meant to refute evidence that Romney was still actively running the company depends on the assumption that he was not. That's circular reasoning.]

Assume for the sake of argument that the law requires someone's name be there, even if the person isn't active?
Click to expand...
I will make no such assumption. Such a law would be absurd.

What exactly is wrong with them using Mitt's name under such circumstances, rather than the name of someone else who wasn't actively managing the company?
Click to expand...
It's wrong because it's a lie. Your best argument is that it would be no less wrong a lie if they used someone else's name. But that hypothetical other person isn't now running for POTUS--and naming that hypothetical person who wasn't actively involved in the company isn't what happened in reality, so that's not a hypothetical we need to spend any time on, is it?

Remember, you're trying to refute one or more of the lines of evidence that Romney was in fact still actively involved in running the company. You can't ask me to assume for the sake of argument that Romney wasn't actively involved in running the company in order to refute evidence that he was. That's question begging.
 
Last edited:
From what I'm reading, I think the Obama supporters pushing this in the media should have kept it low keyed until the issue could be fully vetted. Perhaps just raising questions versus flat accusations.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
No it isn't. You keep trying to frame it that way, but it's not.

Again, the problem the Obama campaign alleges is that Mitt Romney has said on the one hand that he left the company and had no active role in running the company and that he stayed on in a part time basis as someone who has an active role in making key decisions in the company.

The defense that he was listed as CEO as merely a legal requirement does not resolve the problem.
Click to expand...

You're still incoherent. If the problem is an inconsistency in Romney's statements, then the reason for his listing is actually irrelevant since no reason can resolve a contradiction. So why are you so fixated on it, when you keep claiming that the problem is something else?

2) they misled the SEC about who was running the company by claiming that Romney was the CEO, President, sole partner and the person running the company.
Click to expand...

You're asserting that Romney being listed as pro forma CEO only would somehow constitute a deception to the SEC. That claim requires evidence, which you have not supplied.
 
Ziggurat said:
You're still incoherent. If the problem is an inconsistency in Romney's statements, then the reason for his listing is actually irrelevant since no reason can resolve a contradiction.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you agree with me. Why is that "incoherent"? Claiming something is a legal requirement you had no choice about after you have made the choice that makes it a requirement is certainly no excuse for contradictory statements.

So why are you so fixated on it, when you keep claiming that the problem is something else?
Click to expand...
Fixated on it? I'm responding to posts where you try to hide what the issue really is.



You're asserting that Romney being listed as pro forma CEO only would somehow constitute a deception to the SEC. That claim requires evidence, which you have not supplied.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, you're asking me for evidence that the claim "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital" is deceptive if we assume for the sake of argument that Romney was not in fact the CEO, President and controlling person of the company?

Remember, yet again, I'm pointing to these things as evidence that Romney was in fact actively involved in running Bain. When I point out that if we accept your assumptions, you still haven't addressed the conflicting statements made by Romney and the issue of deception those are problems that exist aside from the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed because it is circular (you ask me to assume that Romney wasn't actively involved in running the company in order to respond to evidence that he was).
 
Ziggurat said:
Until I hear about complaints from investors or clients, I have no reason to think that any of them were misled.
Click to expand...
Total logic fail. The whole key to successfully misleading people is to do it in such a way as to make the deception transparent to the "client", and the complexities of the investment world offer many ways to pull that off. It's a lot of why such a thing as the SEC exists.

Since this is an old issue, I'm guessing that there are no such complaints.
Click to expand...
It's an old issue on which some new information has suddenly found its way into the public spotlight. I'm guessing that hordes of tort lawyers are scribbling away on yellow pads even as we speak.
 
DavidJames said:
From what I'm reading, I think the Obama supporters pushing this in the media should have kept it low keyed until the issue could be fully vetted. Perhaps just raising questions versus flat accusations.
Click to expand...
You mean like "Hey, Mitt, can we see your tax returns over the last few years"?
 
Ziggurat said:
You again conflated two issues. I said there might have been a business reason to not appoint an interim CEO. From a business point of view, a CEO might have been unnecessary for the period in question. But the legal obligation (not business reason) to keep a listed CEO could remain, and under those circumstances, why not Romney?
Click to expand...

If a company doesn't need a CEO in order to operate but only needs someone designated as CEO for a legal filing, then the best choice to list as the CEO is a person who has retired from the company? It is proper to list on legal documents someone as the CEO and president of a company who isn't even an employee of the company?

Until I hear about complaints from investors or clients, I have no reason to think that any of them were misled. Since this is an old issue, I'm guessing that there are no such complaints.
Click to expand...

This is an old issue? It's been known all along that Romney was listed as the CEO and president for at least 3 years after he retired from Bain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom