“Romney was not at Bain Capital when they purchased Ampad. He was at Bain Co. and did not return to Bain Capital until December of that year. They were able to keep Ampad running for another 8 years.”
He wasn’t there when they made the purchase. Just when they ran it into the ground. I’m with you.
That'a a rather pathetic post hoc argument, don't you think? What other examples of non-rational persuasion can you come up with?
How about answering this instead: If Ampad was really profitable, why did Mead dump them? Would Ampad be in business today if it weren't for Bain Capital? Did Bain Capital act responsibly towards it's shareholders?
There is a distinction between Bain Co. and Bain Capital. I had hoped you would have understood that. But instead I get the typical unionist argument that a business in existence in 1980 and making a profit should just by the nature of being a business be just as profitable in 2010 by making the exact same product but selling it for more money. Bain Capital was not able to save Ampad. Their profit would have been greater if they had. Yet you try to portray them as some kind of liquidator that is out to destroy good jobs for immediate profit. I would have expected to hear that from DU, but not here.
And as for Salt Lake City: