|
Post by duke on Jul 16, 2012 9:02:45 GMT -5
Romney's 'Retroactive Retirement' Dvorak News Blog With this latest crap, why do people want to vote for this guy? Of course, you could say that about Obama, too… The latest defense seems to be that Romney is not responsible for anything that happened in Bain because he 'retroactively retired.' However, many voters might have a problem with Romney excusing himself from Bain's actions through a legal technicality like retroactive retirement. If he is elected president, Romney will not have the option of 'retroactive retirement' to take away any of the bad effects from his presidency. 'If you're signing an SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] document with your own signature that you're the president, C.E.O., chairman of the board and 100 percent owner of a company, in what world are you living in that you're not in charge?' Cutter said Sunday on 'Face the Nation.' www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57472580/dem-aide-on-bain-if-romney-wasnt-in-charge-who-was/ 'If he wasn't the head of it, who was?' she asked. www.dvorak.org/blog/2012/07/15/romneys-retroactive-retirement/
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jul 16, 2012 12:19:20 GMT -5
The group of partners that was in the process of buying him out. If you'll recall, he was off in Utah saving the Olympics from the excellent management of the dullards who came before him.
Hmmm... sounds like history is about to repeat itself.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jul 16, 2012 12:20:19 GMT -5
this argument is ridiculous. who cares what the SEC docs say? the whole purpose is to paint romney as someone who shipped jobs overseas. the real question here is whether or not romney made decisions at bain capital during that time period. bain capital says he did not. therefore, the obama camp is grasping at straws.
is this really all the democrats have in their arsenal?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 16, 2012 12:55:11 GMT -5
OK Wheels. So signing government documents under penalty of perjury is of no consequence to you?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jul 16, 2012 15:15:10 GMT -5
If Obama believed for one millisecond that such a thing had actually happened, you could bet the farm that Eric Holder would quit running guns to Mexico for a few minutes and open an investigation.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 16, 2012 15:56:21 GMT -5
Fredo I wish your bet was a good one. Sadly, an investigation and prosecution for perjury would simply be called dirty politics under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jul 16, 2012 16:18:37 GMT -5
OK Wheels. So signing government documents under penalty of perjury is of no consequence to you? prove that a law was willingly broken and it will be of consequence to me. Fredo I wish your bet was a good one. Sadly, an investigation and prosecution for perjury would simply be called dirty politics under the circumstances. BS. calling someone a felon without proof is dirty politics. the obama camp has no problem practicing dirty politics. prosecuting a lawbreaker is not dirty politics. face it. if they had something to charge him with, they would do it in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 16, 2012 17:30:50 GMT -5
OK Weasel - wheels: The Obama campaign charged that Romney headed a company that exported jobs. Romney claimed he had left the company and actions taken after his departure should not be ascribed to him. Obama counters with Romney signed filings with the SEC certifying the accuracy of a company that Romney held 100% of the stock and signed the SEC document certifying to be the CEO. Those documents were signed and filed during the time period that Romney now wants to to disclaim responsibility for the actions of the company. Enter Wheels statement that the SEC filings have no value as to proof that Romney was indeed controlling the company. IOW, if Obama makes a claim, there is no proof that would be acceptable to wheels that the claim was indeed accurate.
Romney signing those forms would only be a crime if Romney was not the CEO as he now claims.
There is only two scenarios, Either Romney perjured the forms or he is currently lying. IF I were Romney it would seem to be better to claim a current lie than to set one's self up for a perjury charge. Which alternative are you choosing for Romney? There is no good guy available here. Romney has set himself up for the fall. Some people simply cannot be helped when honesty is the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Smilin' Jack on Jul 16, 2012 19:25:11 GMT -5
With Obama being the poster boy, Commander and Chief Spokesman for Pompous Liar's Anonymous.
It's childish and sad really, whenever Progressives get tagged with an issue, they hurry to counter with the same charge directed at their opponents.
Muddy the issue, make stuff up if required, give the Obama Media the ability to confuse and ill inform.
It's not working this time.
You'll see, come November.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jul 17, 2012 16:57:35 GMT -5
OK Weasel - wheels: The Obama campaign charged that Romney headed a company that exported jobs. Romney claimed he had left the company and actions taken after his departure should not be ascribed to him. Obama counters with Romney signed filings with the SEC certifying the accuracy of a company that Romney held 100% of the stock and signed the SEC document certifying to be the CEO. Those documents were signed and filed during the time period that Romney now wants to to disclaim responsibility for the actions of the company. Enter Wheels statement that the SEC filings have no value as to proof that Romney was indeed controlling the company. IOW, if Obama makes a claim, there is no proof that would be acceptable to wheels that the claim was indeed accurate. Romney signing those forms would only be a crime if Romney was not the CEO as he now claims. There is only two scenarios, Either Romney perjured the forms or he is currently lying. IF I were Romney it would seem to be better to claim a current lie than to set one's self up for a perjury charge. Which alternative are you choosing for Romney? There is no good guy available here. Romney has set himself up for the fall. Some people simply cannot be helped when honesty is the issue. weasel? what are you, 12? experts agree that no law was broken on the SEC forms and bain documents prove that romney was not managing the company during that time. all of this was brought up when he ran for governor, but it was proven to be false. read something other than the left-wing whacko garbage. factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/ www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.htmlwww.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/16/mitt-romney-answered-questions-about-bain-sec-filings-during-massachusetts-gubernatorial-campaignface it. romney didn't break the law and he didn't manage bain capital after he left in 1999. as much as you, the obama camp and the liberal media want to force the lie, it just ain't true.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 22, 2012 15:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Jul 22, 2012 23:19:16 GMT -5
This particular strawman cracks me up.
I was retroactively retired from service… guess I'm a felon now too.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jul 23, 2012 11:31:08 GMT -5
as the links i posted show, legal experts disagree with you. there was no crime of perjury. in fact, the title of chief executive implies no direct action in company dealings, whatsoever. so there was no lie. this is all a distraction that has no legs. strawman, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jul 23, 2012 15:54:09 GMT -5
Clinton retroactively taxed me, but that was OK, I guess, because he is a democrat.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jul 24, 2012 14:22:12 GMT -5
Clinton retroactively taxed me, but that was OK, I guess, because he is a democrat. Not OK, regardless of what administration taxes retroactively. Now you are doing what you have denigrated me for. claiming that another administration did it making it OK? Taxes and tax law, nor applicability is part of the subject of this thread. The subject, since you apparently missed it is Romney's disavowing responsibility for acts that would be detrimental to his new, newest jobs creation claim.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jul 24, 2012 14:34:48 GMT -5
What I saw him say was that he had no input regarding the day to day operations of the company. I really don't see why that has to be in conflict with the fact that he was the official CEO of the company. If you;re selling out, it takes time to get the paperwork done. BFD.
|
|