Citan001 said:
Well master p is it really punishment? Look at gm for example they are so big and have become so big yes they were a great company but they really messed up in the 80s and 90s and now look. They are so big that we cant let them fail. If one just one of these super companies fails it messed up not just the us economy but the worlds economy. Why should I as a tax payer be paying for gms mistakes? I love gm I love a few of their cars but they really did mess up and refused to build a product that people wanted. They might be asking for another 17 billion dollars….thats ontop of the what 13 billion they have already been given…If you follow what I said and break em up into at the very least individual brands like pontiac chevy and what not then it would not be nearly as devistating for the economy if they let one or 2 of them fall. Yes I do believe they need to file for bankruptcy because they can get out of the UAW contract and start all over but at this current time with the economy like it is the last thing we need is a few more thousand people looking for jobs over night. Either way you cut it someone will always have to pay. Why should it be the average joe like you an me? Why not make the ceo pay I mean come on the current ceo of gm took home like 16 million last year. Why is he taking so much when he has run that company into the ground and why do we as tax payers have to pay to keep the company open when the ceo wont even give back a dollar.
The automakers are run by a business model that is decades old and they have refused to update it to compete in a global market. If you split GM into 20 different companies it wouldn’t make a bit of difference because their core business model is destined to fail in the market we have today. They were stupid to not take bankruptcy because it would give them the power to get rid of the *edited* unions that have choked the auto industry to death. If they terminated the union contact is DOES NOT mean people have to lose their jobs, it just means they have to EARN what they are getting paid instead of doing 4 hours of honest work and getting paid for 8. At this point I imagine about 1/3 of the UAW members would rather quit than make a fair wage comparable to their labor’s value to the company but those jobs could just as easily be re-filled as there are many others who would be glad to get a stable job.
NuRayZ said:
Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of WMDs were found, leading to accusations that the United States, its President George W. Bush in particular, had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq’s weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. The Center for Public Integrity asserted President Bush’s administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the United States.[3]While various inert, leftover WMDs and weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have been found, most weapons inspectors now believe that Iraq’s chemical weapons program ceased production after 1991.There were no stockpiles of WMDs found. 935 false statements. aka Blind loyalty.
Unfortunately for your argument they did happen to find enough nuclear material to give Iran’s president a pretty powerful wet dream. Just because they were left over doesn’t mean they weren’t there. That’s retarded. It’s like saying the leftovers in your fridge don’t exist because they are old. 
Besides, biased source is biased.
NuRayZ said:
I’m sick of the unrealistic idea of “let the banks fail”, that it’s healthy for the economy spew. So let the banks and giant businesses fail? That means we let the people who work for them, who rely on them, fail too. There will be millions more without jobs if we didn’t assist in some way. Failure is a last resort, especially with retardedly huge companies. Majority of the employees that will get tossed cause of “higher up’s” getting greedy, don’t diverse that. It’s not there fault. That’s why the government is stepping in, to save jobs. Wanna talk about displacement? Displacement of jobs, of LIVES. The people who get hit the hardest in a depression are the middle to lower class. Don’t forget that, *edited* right the government should step in, because I’ll be damned if I let the poor get poorer and let them suffer more than they already are. When the times are tough government should step in, to buffer, assist, cushion.
Pseudo Laissez-Faire. You know what that means? Leave it alone, UNLESS it needs help or fixing. well, uhm ALOT needs fixing, which is why the government ought to step in.
So? If a mom and pop store is poorly run do you expect the government to step in and save them? What if 100 such stores close? 1000? The government doesn’t care about them and small businesses fail EVERY DAY and with them go thousands of jobs EVERY DAY but you never hear about them because they aren’t “big enough”. Now why is it fair for the government to save some jobs and not others? How are rural jobs less deserving of bailout money than urban jobs?
The real truth is no company is too big to fail. I’m sorry that people lose their jobs but that’s the way it is in every country on the planet. I guess your ideal society would have everyone working for the government in a “safe” job that’s never outsourced and never made to compete but there’s only one system of government that’s ever tried that and I do believe most of those countries failed harder than any individual company or industry would have failed. If we continue on this path of blindly tossing money to fix companies unwilling to be fixed eventually we will run out of money because let’s face it, you can’t steal from the rich forever. Eventually the rich will be made poor and, if the current trend continues, simultaneously NOT make the poor any richer. That leads to the failure of our country.
NuRayZ said:
So because we aren’t 100% sure that there are NO WMDs means we CANT say their are no weapons of mass destruction?
Yet when Bush wasn’t 100% sure about WMDs, that means it’s okay to say “There are WMD’s over there”? That isn’t logical. If you can say with uncertainty that there are WMDs, you can also say with uncertainty that there are NO WMDs.
The fact is we were unsure. Yet he told us he was certain.
Your own quote a few posts back said there were WMD components there. You killed your own argument…