Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They made money because most of the companies didn't fail (over 3/4ths didn't). So on total, they made more money than they lost because on total they saved more companies than they didn't.]
You seem pretty confident in this.
Please list every company Bain invested in and their +/- for each.
You do have that info, right? To back your statement up?
Huh? No. I don't.
Here's a crazy thought: If you can't back up a flat, declarative statement DON'T MAKE IT.
*cough* I didn't claim that I knew the details of dollars gained/lost by every single company Bain invested in. You injected that little strawman all by yourself.
What I claimed was that over 3/4ths of the companies Bain invested in did not fail. And I provided data to back that up.
Quote:
In case you're missing the point, I could give two sh*ts about Bain's profit/loss.
Then why bother asking about it? Seems like you cared a bit right up until I linked the WSJ article which supported everything I said. Now suddenly it doesn't matter that the cases being made were not typical results of Bain's work and that those attacking Romney on this are omitting facts in order to misconstrue what really went on? Seemed to me like that was the key issue.
Quote:
I do care when people make statements they claim to be true and can't back them up. Where I'm from, that's called "making things up"...or - y'know - lying.
I said that over 3/4ths of the companies they invested in didn't fail. That statement wasn't made up.
I also said that they made most of their money by saving companies and not by making them fail. I also didn't make that up (it's in the WSJ article as well).
So wtf are you talking about?