The CEO, like the CFO and other officers, are hired by a Board of Directors, who are appointed by the shareholders. These are the people who have money at stake in the company. Now what special power does a CEO have, to cause the people who hired him to literally screw themselves? Well, he has a contract, one that he negotiated upon his hiring and as a condition of his accepting the job. If the terms of the contract are unacceptable, it didn't have to be accepted by the parties involved. If any of you liberal morons who have NO idea of what a CEO does, were controlling shareholders or on the board of directors, you could have voiced your opinion on the conditions of the CEOs contract, you could have made stipulations regarding performance, etc. But the fact is, you aren't. It wasn't left up to you to decide, the decision was made by the people who had financial interest at stake.
The Lowes example is indicative of what we often see with Liberals, assumptions and presumptions based on preconceived notions and fallacies. Poor stock market performance automatically equates to poor performance on part of the CEO. We don't need to look at mitigating circumstances or evaluate any more information... poor stock performance just automatically equals poor CEO performance, and this is profound ignorance on display, when it comes to what is being discussed. Poor stock performance can be the result of a myriad of things, many of which the CEO has no control over.
It seems like you lower life form liberals could comprehend this, because it's the 'excuse' you've been using for Obama repeatedly, but MAYBE the CEO inherited so many problems, a poor stock performance is actually BETTER than what would have resulted without his leadership? I mean, the company didn't tank, it's still there. Maybe the CEO saved them from catastrophic failure, and 'poor stock performance' to you, is actually a huge victory for them? Do you KNOW this isn't so? Have you investigated anything other than the stock performance? Nope... poor stock performance means poor CEO performance, and no one can challenge this liberal truism.
Funny story.... A few weeks ago, I was hanging out with my liberal music friends. We don't usually talk politics, because they know as well as I, it will end up in a fight. So we avoid talking heavy politics, and we get along fine. But this one friend got to talking about the CEOs making so much more than others....blah blah blah, and after they ranted on for about 10 minutes, I asked them: "Do you know what the CEO does? Do you know their job responsibilities on a daily basis?"
I got this look that I can only describe as 'helpless confusion' much like a deer in the headlights, but with more puzzlement. They stammered around and hem hawed about, and finally offered up... "They attend meetings and make a few phone calls, then go to lunch, then go play golf..ahahahhahaha!" I pressed again for details.. "What sort of meetings and phone calls? Who do they talk to and meet with, and what about?" Again... the look of bewilderment, and another litany of stereotypical things you might associate with someone who has no real "job" and just fucks off all day.
So we get to the root of the problem here, most liberals have no idea of what a CEO does, what they are responsible for on a daily basis, what their job entails, and what they do. In a Liberal's mind, a CEO is basically a rich fuck off who does nothing, except to spend the money that should be going to the workers. THAT is how they view every CEO, and we attempt to engage in arguments with them from that perspective.
