HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Turns out we were wrong. ...

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:19 PM

Turns out we were wrong. Mitt is a veteran. Mitt did serve.

We now know that Mitt was an early volunteer in the war against women.

He served nobly and undercover, committing perjury about the likely value of Staples stock so that

this woman, Maureen Sullivan, would be defrauded of millions of dollars for the rest of her life.



Most right wing politicians fight the war on women from distance like the pilot of bomber and never get a chance
to inflict personal pain. They vote for measures that will cause damage from a distance.

A few others like Congressman Joe Walsh are able to inflict damage on to their own wives and children.

But it takes a special warrior to go out of your way to perjure yourself, to tell a court that your stock isn't as good
as it seems because you didn't do a good job as a CEO to help a friend steal money from his wife.

Mitt Romney, veteran in the war against woman.

48 replies, 5250 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Turns out we were wrong. Mitt is a veteran. Mitt did serve. (Original post)
grantcart Oct 2012 OP
TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #1
Stargazer09 Oct 2012 #3
Arugula Latte Oct 2012 #10
TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #12
Coyotl Oct 2012 #23
Blue Meany Oct 2012 #2
grantcart Oct 2012 #6
TexasTowelie Oct 2012 #4
Uncle Joe Oct 2012 #5
grantcart Oct 2012 #14
Ilsa Oct 2012 #7
ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #8
Blue Idaho Oct 2012 #9
malaise Oct 2012 #11
grantcart Oct 2012 #13
George II Oct 2012 #15
NoMoreWarNow Oct 2012 #16
grantcart Oct 2012 #28
FailureToCommunicate Oct 2012 #17
goclark Oct 2012 #18
grantcart Oct 2012 #32
donqpublic Oct 2012 #19
porphyrian Oct 2012 #20
Media Lies Oct 2012 #21
MADem Oct 2012 #22
grantcart Oct 2012 #25
MADem Oct 2012 #35
hughee99 Oct 2012 #24
grantcart Oct 2012 #26
hughee99 Oct 2012 #29
grantcart Oct 2012 #30
hughee99 Oct 2012 #39
crunch60 Oct 2012 #38
hughee99 Oct 2012 #40
Calypso0956 Oct 2012 #45
hobbit709 Oct 2012 #44
grantcart Oct 2012 #46
naaman fletcher Oct 2012 #47
libdem4life Oct 2012 #27
grantcart Oct 2012 #31
WillyT Oct 2012 #33
grantcart Oct 2012 #42
upi402 Oct 2012 #34
tjwash Oct 2012 #36
WinkyDink Oct 2012 #37
grantcart Oct 2012 #43
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #41
grantcart Oct 2012 #48

Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:21 PM

1. Any woman that votes for Mitt Romney is dumber than

a box of hammers, or hates herself and other women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:23 PM

3. +1

I just don't understand why women think he would be a good president. He literally hates women, unless they are home cooking dinner while barefoot and pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:48 PM

10. Chickens for the Colonel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:02 PM

12. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

23. Don't be insulting the dumd, or the deaf, or any other alter-anled persons

And have compassion about ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:22 PM

2. This is bad: it will shore up Romney's support from the Republican base...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Meany (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:39 PM

6. half of it anyway, lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:27 PM

4. I predict that on his radio show today Rush will trash her reputation

just like Sandra Fluke.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:28 PM

5. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, grantcart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:54 PM

14. thank you Joe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:42 PM

7. K&R. Mitt punished her for getting out

of her bad marriage and having the nerve to claim her share of joint assets.

Shame on him, and shame on CEO Stemberg for treating her and their son like pariahs.

edited to correct CEO's name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:44 PM

8. Im am sure Mitt somehow justified it...

in his lizard brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:48 PM

9. Look out Gloria - Tagg will take a swing at you!

No wonder Willard was sweating his way through the last debate - he's suffering from PTSD!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:49 PM

11. Excellent post

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:05 PM

13. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:59 PM

15. He didn't serve, but he's about to BE served - a subpoena!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:06 PM

16. Ouch!!!

 

that's a good one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:22 PM

28. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:09 PM

17. I used to just dislike the guy (living in MA) but now I truly despise him!

Thanks, grantcart, for the post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:10 PM

18. K and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goclark (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:01 PM

32. hey goclark keep your eye on NCarolina

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:43 PM

19. Can you imagine Mittens serving ON a jury?

The horror. I think we need a Neocon remake of "12 Angry Men." It would be hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:44 PM

20. . n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:48 PM

21. K&R

 

good post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

22. Do you work at the courthouse? Have you heard anything off the record?

The judge is going to have another go at this on Thursday--there's no real "facts" that I know about that have come out on this score. The docs are still under seal. Speculation is rampant, but there's no "there" there yet. The local news in Beantown has been covering this; the latest report at the noon hour was what I said in this paragraph.

The stock theory is not "in the bag" I do not think. Why? Because if the guy wanted to fuck his wife over, he'd say the stock was worth MORE than it was worth, so he'd be able to give her less of it. Unless, of course, he gave it to her with the understanding that she would liquidate it at once, or sell it back, or something on those lines.

Also, she liquidated her stock to go after the guy again in court. It was a case that went through court for nearly a decade, from what I understand. There was also a kid who alleged abuse by the father, resulting in repeated return visits to court, so the father wrote him a really shitty letter saying he was, in effect, disowned. The suggestion put forth is that the kid was lying at the behest of the mother.

You'd think that a guy who worked at--oops, OWNED-- Staples could get a camera recording system and wire up the house so that child visits could be documented--that would have nipped that abuse shit in the bud quick.

I just don't know if that "stock" track is the correct one. If it is, unless there's some really "juicy" (and that is what is alleged) damaging testimony by Mitt, it's not going to take hold.

I have a few wild ass and totally unsubstantiated theories that, if true, would take hold, plucked from thin air....

Do we know the religious affiliation of these people? If they are Mormon, remember that Mittsy was a "bishop," and in that role he did counseling, to include the marital kind. Perhaps he told this woman to put up with her husband's perverse habits, anything from beating on her to enjoyment of scatalogical pursuits for carnal enjoyment??? I'm just speculating, here. Feel free to make up your own!

Or perhaps he told her to put up with a mistress--one of those "off the books" 2nd wives? Maybe he's one of those fundamental types...and she knows Mittsy's other wives and has them on her Xmas card list!!! Now I'm really speculating--but hey, no one knows anything yet, so might as well have some fun.

Or maybe she and Mittsy had a wild night of passion when Annie wasn't feeling well?

I think we need to wait-n-see on this one. I hope Thursday brings a report of TABLOID proportions!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:49 PM

25. I am on a phone and can't cite the articles, but if you will read the

Other threads you will see that there are credible witnesses who claim that Romney testified that "Staples is but a dream" at a time when it had substantial investment.

When I heard GA was involved I thought it was ajoke.

Its no joke Romney went out of his way to help his friend hide assets from his wife.

Ita theft. Its disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:18 PM

35. I trust your veracity entirely--that's fascinating. I hadn't heard that.

Of course, they aren't going to indulge in speculation on WCVB. They simply delivered the bare-bones facts to this point.

It most certainly is theft, if proven, and Mittsy would be seen as an accessory--to say nothing of a perjurer. Why, I wonder, though, didn't the former wife take this tack previous to now?

Is there a statute of limitations on her claim, and could she be looking for a payday from other sources with regard to her situation and Mittsy's role in it?

Why, I wonder, is Mittsy's lawyer giving the big "Eh" when it comes to this matter? He's not fighting tooth-and-nail (at least publicly) to keep His Assholiness's testimony sealed. Could he be working behind the scenes to shut this shit down? I wonder who appointed the judge hearing the case?

Tomorrow will tell the tale, I guess!!

Rather shallowly, though, I wouldn't mind if one of my hare-brained scenarios were revealed to be the issue....we need a little soap opera drama from the other team to liven up the proceedings in this final push!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:35 PM

24. How does one commit provable perjury when asked to speculate about a future business success?

In 1991, when he testified, the stock was worth about $1-$2 a share. In 1992, it topped out just above $2 a share at it's highest. In 1993, it spent pretty much the whole year below 50 cents a share. Then it went up to $2-3 dollars in 1994.

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:SPLS

Wouldn't it work that the less Romney said the stock was really worth, the MORE shares she'd get in the divorce (more shares to make up for the decreased value)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:54 PM

26. whether it fits "legal perjury" will be seen but

If he said, as is reported, "Staples is but a dream" at a time when there we're contracts in hand for more paid up capital, it would have been a clearl lie.

More to the point women know about friends whose husbands screw them by lyong about and hiding their assets. Independent women will be revolted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:33 PM

29. I'm not sure this even fits the category of "hiding assets",

since I haven't seen anything (yet) that says anyone (Rmoney or anyone else) lied about the actual financial facts in the depositions. It was a company that may have had a lot of potential, but it's a tough business where there was certainly no guarantee of success, and based on the stock price in the few years that followed, it's tough to argue that success was "right around the corner". Yes the company did eventually become very profitable, but I can't imagine most people would have been willing to testify that it would years before it took off.

If it helps get votes for Obama, great, but I haven't seen anything yet to lead me to believe that Rmoney did something here worthy of calling it an "october surprise".

At this point, it seems to me to be more a case of Allred using the election to gain PR for a client, than of revealing information that is of any real value to the voters. If we weren't 2 weeks away from an election that Rmoney was running in, I doubt this story would have even made the papers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:01 PM

30. It was reported two years ago and a documentary company seemed close to doing a documentary on

the whole issue.

The fact that it is close to the election may give the courts motive to unseal Romney's testimony. As he wasn't a litigant he doesn't really have standing to keep his testimony sealed.

If the comment, "Staples is just a dream" occured at the time when they had written offers of paid up capital it would in fact be hiding assets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:03 PM

39. Still, you have to speculate that they had money that wasn't being reported

I don't think it's clear what offers or deals were in the works, or "all but finalized" but none of those deals that were just about to happen seems to have done much for the stock price over the next 3 years, so it couldn't have been that big of a deal in the works that it would have guaranteed prosperity.

Maybe there COULD be something here, but I haven't seen much of anything yet. This is good publicity for a documentary if they're looking to put one out, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:51 PM

38. It will be just one more lie to add to the mountain of lies and distortions that spew out of

 

Romney's mouth on a daily basis, It is the totality of this deception against not only the American people, but the thousands of people who directly lost their jobs because of his greed as a Vulture capitalist.
Many businessmen do it, but they are not running for President of the United States, big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crunch60 (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:06 PM

40. Yes, it may add to a mountain, but a pattern is already pretty well established.

I don't see the "bombshell" or "October Surprise" aspect of this story, yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crunch60 (Reply #38)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:52 AM

45. Here's Ann~

Like attracks Like~


<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/arrogance-and-apathy/question-2867639/?link=ibaf&imgurl=&q=romney idiot"><br>romney idiot pics on Sodahead</a>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #26)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:35 AM

44. Not just men.

I have a friend going through a divorce right now and she's the one hiding and downplaying assets. This is after she took $18K out of his business account and went on an extended European vacation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 11:26 AM

46. with the $ up, that was one hell of a vacation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:22 PM

47. Yup

 

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:18 PM

27. A whole new demographic emerges...spouses male and female...who got screwed by exes...

Just maybe Mitt feels just an itty bitty part of her pain and humiliation..and her 12-year old son. If the SEC doesn't get into this somehow...screw partisanship...we're pretty much an international laughingstock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:12 PM

31. and wives that worry that they may get screwed in the future


It confirms a pattern of Romney marginalizing women's issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:04 PM

33. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:47 PM

42. tks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:05 PM

34. Romney started Bain with DEATH SQUAD money

He has skeletons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:20 PM

36. that's an insult to real veterans

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:26 PM

37. "Arriving to" is completely WRONG. It is "Arriving at." And no, I don't care how someone has used or

heard it as "to."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:22 AM

43. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:16 PM

41. Disgusting. Rmoney working against women. Works against single mothers. She's not a Mormon

so presumably its okay to lie and screw her out of the money.

After all, it was to ensure more money went to the church so its okay to lie for the lord.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 11:14 PM

48. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread