FACT CHECK: Romney met Bain partners after exit

No..I understand ownership transfer pretty well.

What I don't understand is the nonsense you are spewing.

Because you had some kludgey private deal doesn't mean that traverses every industry.

And was your "service" company, public? I doubt it. Because you probably didn't file with the SEC.

And even with that..it still sounds like you were 100% responsible for what happened to your business.

my goal was not to prove what Mitt was doing in those meetings.

My goal was to refute your theory that the fact that he attended those meetings is prrof he lied when he said he had no role in the business.

SO I used my sale contract as an example where I, still majority owner of the company on paper has a contractual obligation to STAY OUT OF the day to day operations of the company I am a majority owner of yet the new owner has a contractual obligation to meet with me face to face no less than 10 times a year over the next 5 years..untiul all stock is transferred. This is becuase I, as 100% owner until recently have my name on every vendor and client contract still in effect...and whereas I can not intervene in any decision she (the new owner) makes, I have the right to know if it will have an adverse affect on my personal reputation, credibility and credit rating...and at that point I am permitted to have an independant auditor review the activities if there is evindience of her being in breach of contract.

And that is exactly what I did. I successfully refuted your theory that Mitt attending those meetings is proof he lied about playing a roile in Bain after his departure.

He may have played a role...he may not have. But meetings with the new ownership is by no means proof.

Stop.

You post falls apart right here.

Romney says..there were no meetings.

Romney says..there was no involvement with Bain..whatsoever.

He's lying.

And what this boils down to is this. Romney is running on his record at Bain. An examination into Bain finds the company was wildly successful at making it's investors a huge profit. But generally at a cost to the average joe and their jobs. This didn't only occur after 1999..mind you. Romney invested in Chinese companies prior to that who's interest it was to move American jobs to China.

I mean..that's fine. He made money doing it. It was nothing illegal.

And the whole focus of the GOP is not Labor..but entrepreneurs, owners and executives.

They say that constantly. I dunno why they run away from it when they are grilled about it.

No.

What Romeny said was he never met with Bain to discuss day to day operations.
He also said he was not involved with Bain....and he wasnt.
But only someone trying to prove him as a liar would think that he was ALSO referring to any meetings regarding his DEAL with Bain. I mean...no offense....but a business owner who sells a company but due to the contract still has ownership of stock for a period of time will ALWAYS meet with the new owners to ensure the terms of the deal are being met.

Look Sallow.....I read your posts...your goal on here is to prove Romney is a lying scum sucking piece of shit. I understand. Go for it.

But as a result, you take items such as this article and do yoru best to make them open and shut cases of Romney lying...and sadly it opens the door for you to come across naive.

You want to stick to your theory...fine......

But whereas I have no doubt you can talk circles around me on some topics....and you have......when it comes to starting, owning, running and selling a company...and the activities of a business owner AFTER the sale but BEFORE the transfer of stock....I have a leg up on you. I have sold 3 companies that I started in my time....and not one of them was I allowed to get involved in the day to day activities after the sale....and not one of them included the transfer of majority stock for less than 3 years...my most recent one being 5 years.

Time to move on. This thread has gotten silly at this point.
 
I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.

and yet with no evidence, you've decided romney did have a role in decision making after he left.

laughable
But there is evidence. By year three, he is still listed as sole stockholder, president, and CEO.

And there are documents that have come out that have shown his involvement during that time.

I'm surprised that you are acting as if you know nothing about this, Sgt. Schultz! :lol:
 
ROMNEY: Jan, I had no involvement with the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999.

and what leads you to believe that's a lie?

meetings =/= making decisions

Staying on as CEO, continuing to be paid a salary, and then retroactively retiring.

Walks like a duck.

you're thinking like a duck

not that there's anything wrong with that
 
I have no role in my company at all....none. Ensuring the obligation of my contract with the new owner is met does not mean I am playing a role. I dont care how she pays the venodrs.....I meet with her to ensure they were paid.

You are still making an ass of yourself. But please...continue.....
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.

Nope...nopt saying that.

You see...I am staying on topic.

The topic of this thread was about the fact that Mitt was still meeting with Bain even though he said he had no role.

Sallow made a point that it was PROOF that he was lying...

SO I used my situation as an example of how those meetings in noi way are proof of anything.

Why?

Becuase those meetings may very well be Mitt ensuring that the terms and obligations of the sale were being met properly.

My contract has the buyer promising to offer me certain information as it pertains to the deal no less than 10 times a year IN PERSON and with no more than 45 days between each meeting...this allows me to never be more than 30 days in arrears with a vendor.

So again...not saying that is what Mitt was doing....but it most certainly could have.....tasking away the CERTAINTY that the meetings were proof Mitt lied.

So now...what were you saying?
Since you insist on being obtuse, I will make it really simple for you:

Is the CEO of a company ultimately responsible for what that company does?

Yes or no.


Consider this a test of your honesty. Don't blow it.
 
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.

and yet with no evidence, you've decided romney did have a role in decision making after he left.

laughable
But there is evidence. By year three, he is still listed as sole stockholder, president, and CEO.

And there are documents that have come out that have shown his involvement during that time.

I'm surprised that you are acting as if you know nothing about this, Sgt. Schultz! :lol:

i have the advantage of not giving a flying fuck so i don't have to read every wingnut source on both sides.

my understanding is that if he was involved in the day to day activities of bain after he said he had retired or whatever you want to call it, he'd be open to being indicted for a felony.

no indictment to me means he's not lying.

but you're certainly welcome to continue to bloviate about it.

hell, have a chick fil-a while you're at it.
 
and what leads you to believe that's a lie?

meetings =/= making decisions

Staying on as CEO, continuing to be paid a salary, and then retroactively retiring.

Walks like a duck.

you're thinking like a duck

not that there's anything wrong with that
MV5BNTQ2NjUyNTE4M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTc0ODY5._V1._SY317_CR7,0,214,317_.jpg
 
Obama should run on his record; record debt, deficits, unemployment, homelessness, foreclosures, people living in poverty and our first ever credit downgrade
And you should continue to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent, for partisan political purposes.

Get those t-shirts printed up, boy! There are PROFITS to be made!
 
ROMNEY: Jan, I had no involvement with the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999.

and what leads you to believe that's a lie?

meetings =/= making decisions

Staying on as CEO, continuing to be paid a salary, and then retroactively retiring.

Walks like a duck.

I am sitting here in my home office typing away on this forum.

I am no longer running the company I sold in January. I still own 80% of the stock and will own 60% next year...40% the year after...and so on.

I am still laneled as the President of the corporation and must sign the corp returns....and will only do so AFTER the independent auditor approves them as accurate

I still get a small salary by law...my names are still on contracts with vendors and clients.....and I am personally responsible for the satisdsfaction of the venodr contracts.

I do not have access to the books by contract...but an indepoendant auditor does if I suspect wrong doing..such as a vendor not getting paid in a timely fashion.

By contract, I can not represent myself as the owner nor can I interrupt daily activities of the company.

I can offer advice if I wish.....but i will not for it could open the door for the new owner to sue me if my advice went bad.

The new owner has a contractual obligation to meet with me nop less than 10 times a year until all stock is transferred or all contrects with my name expire and shjow me that all vendor obligations are up to date.

It only walks like a duck to you becuase you dont understand what a sale with no or partial stock transfer at signing is all about.
 
ROMNEY: Jan, I had no involvement with the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999.

and what leads you to believe that's a lie?

meetings =/= making decisions

He also said, "I was an owner, and being a shareholder doesn't mean you're running the business." He said he couldn't recall attending any Bain management meetings after he moved to Salt Lake City to oversee the Olympic Games.
Romney: No role in Bain management after 1999 - Yahoo! News

That.

How do you not "recall" getting on a plane to boston and meeting with Business partners?
 
Never written what?

You talk about your personal business...without describing the type of business or why it took so long to sell it.

I owned a bar.

Took three weeks to close it down.

And that's with a huge mess with the IRS.

Closing a business down is not the same as transferring ownership.

Mine was a service company. I was sole shareholder...

I sold it to an employee who was with me for many years.....and I sold it for a relatively nice multiple of net margin.

However, she AS MOST PEOPLE, did not have the cash to buy it outright.....but her potential incvome from the firm over 5 years will allow her to pay about 20% of the sales price a year while still keeping some income so she can maintain her personal expenses.

So I sold it to her for zero dollars upfront....so I was still 100% sharholder at time of sale. My name is still on ALL contracts...with clients and vendors...many of those will expire over time and she will re-sign with her name.

However, per contract AND by my choice....I do not get iunvolved in ANY day to day decisions...EXCEPT ensuring my vendors under MY name are paid timely.....that is all she has the responsibility to show me monthly.

I will be primary shareholder for 2 years...taking a subordinate position in the thrid year....with absolutely NO involvement in day to day operations....

Like I said...you do not understand what is invoved in owenrship transfer.

No..I understand ownership transfer pretty well.

What I don't understand is the nonsense you are spewing.

Because you had some kludgey private deal doesn't mean that traverses every industry.

And was your "service" company, public? I doubt it. Because you probably didn't file with the SEC.

And even with that..it still sounds like you were 100% responsible for what happened to your business.

BINGO! The buck stops at the top in any corporation or company.

You would think the "Party Of Business" would understand this.
 
Romney met Bain partners after exit

And...... What? Just speculation.. Oh my..........
 
Is Bain all you have and noone cares how sad is THAT? So what the guys made millions doing business, OMG he increased profits by outsourcing, because American unions jacked up labor costs.....I dont know if he did do these things, but even if he did....HINT NOONE CARES...because liberals that are rich DO THE SAME SHIT...you lose!

You don't speak for "noone". You don't even speak well for yourself. I'm sure you don't "care" about a lot of things that matter to millions of thoughtful Americans.
:lol: Every time I see someone use "noone" I think of the Herman's Hermits.
 
ROMNEY: Jan, I had no involvement with the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999.

and what leads you to believe that's a lie?

meetings =/= making decisions

He also said, "I was an owner, and being a shareholder doesn't mean you're running the business." He said he couldn't recall attending any Bain management meetings after he moved to Salt Lake City to oversee the Olympic Games.
Romney: No role in Bain management after 1999 - Yahoo! News

That.

How do you not "recall" getting on a plane to boston and meeting with Business partners?

how do you not know what a management meeting is?

how do you not know that saying he never attended a management meeting is not the same as saying he never met with his partners?

is there a history of early onset alzheimer's in your family?

no offense, but this is getting beyond retarded. :lol:
 
And you continue to want to treat every company, big or small, the same.

You had no further decision-making in your company, so Mitt must have had no further decision-making in his.

Laughable.

Nope...nopt saying that.

You see...I am staying on topic.

The topic of this thread was about the fact that Mitt was still meeting with Bain even though he said he had no role.

Sallow made a point that it was PROOF that he was lying...

SO I used my situation as an example of how those meetings in noi way are proof of anything.

Why?

Becuase those meetings may very well be Mitt ensuring that the terms and obligations of the sale were being met properly.

My contract has the buyer promising to offer me certain information as it pertains to the deal no less than 10 times a year IN PERSON and with no more than 45 days between each meeting...this allows me to never be more than 30 days in arrears with a vendor.

So again...not saying that is what Mitt was doing....but it most certainly could have.....tasking away the CERTAINTY that the meetings were proof Mitt lied.

So now...what were you saying?
Since you insist on being obtuse, I will make it really simple for you:

Is the CEO of a company ultimately responsible for what that company does?

Yes or no.


Consider this a test of your honesty. Don't blow it.

Yes....but a sale contract may relieve him of such...for a CEO in many cases stays a CEO based on majority holding....but contractually not permitted to oversee day to day...

Now...a test of your honesty...have you ever been a business owner where you owned 100% of the shares...and then sold the company?
 
FACT CHECK: Romney met Bain partners after exit



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics bid. But according to Bain associates and others familiar with Romney's actions at the time, he stayed in regular contact with his partners over the following months, tending to his partnership interests and negotiating his separation from the company.

Those familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base, but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments or other management decisions. Yet Romney continued to oversee his partnership stakes even as he disengaged from the firm, personally signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through the spring of 2001, according to financial reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The details of Romney's contacts with his Bain partners between his 1999 departure and his separation from the company in mid-2001 could show how involved he was - either as CEO or passive investor - in several multimillion-dollar investment deals, bankruptcies and a spate of layoffs and overseas job shifts at Bain-owned companies that reportedly occurred during that span. Romney's role became a campaign issue in recent weeks because corporate records from the time showed his interests in some of those deals - despite his insistence that he gave up any decision-making authority once he left Bain.


*snip*

nothing new here period...and AP starts off with misinformation;

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics bid.


he didn't exit, he was on a leave of absence.

and from your link;

Those familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base, but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments or other management decisions.



whats your problem dude? seriously? bored?
Selective cutting, there.

You're a good little soldier.
 
FACT CHECK: Romney met Bain partners after exit



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics bid. But according to Bain associates and others familiar with Romney's actions at the time, he stayed in regular contact with his partners over the following months, tending to his partnership interests and negotiating his separation from the company.

Those familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base, but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments or other management decisions. Yet Romney continued to oversee his partnership stakes even as he disengaged from the firm, personally signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through the spring of 2001, according to financial reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The details of Romney's contacts with his Bain partners between his 1999 departure and his separation from the company in mid-2001 could show how involved he was - either as CEO or passive investor - in several multimillion-dollar investment deals, bankruptcies and a spate of layoffs and overseas job shifts at Bain-owned companies that reportedly occurred during that span. Romney's role became a campaign issue in recent weeks because corporate records from the time showed his interests in some of those deals - despite his insistence that he gave up any decision-making authority once he left Bain.


*snip*

nothing new here period...and AP starts off with misinformation;

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he had no active role in Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, after he exited in February 1999 to take over Salt Lake City's Winter Olympics bid.


he didn't exit, he was on a leave of absence.

and from your link;

Those familiar with Romney's discussions with his Bain partners said the contacts included several meetings in Boston, the company's home base, but were limited to matters that did not affect the firm's investments or other management decisions.



whats your problem dude? seriously? bored?
Selective cutting, there.

You're a good little soldier.

you set an excellent example
 

Forum List

Back
Top