NuRayZ said:
First of all. I think small businesses should get help too. But If you owned a company, and it was failing, you would want someone to help, hence Pseudo Laissez faire.
If I owned a business and it was failing because I wasn’t running it correctly, no, I would not expect to get other people’s money to help me run it poorly that much longer. Times change and if you can’t adapt your company it WILL go out of business. You can’t force customers to buy your products and regardless of how much money the government gives you, nothing will change that. What the government is doing is allowing a company that sells a less desireable product to continue to sell its less desireable product longer, ignoring the fact that the company doesn’t care that it’s less desireable or that people don’t WANT to buy it. To say a company with that attitude deserves to stay in business simply because they’re a “big company” pretty much defines you as a someone who doesn’t care about our economy or how it’s worked since its inception.
NuRayZ said:
OH AND LOOKIE THERE. BUSH says it himself: “He didn’t have WMDs but he had the compacity.” I’m not arguing with you on whether or not Iraq had things that could be potential WMDs. I’m arguing the fact that Bush and his goons didn’t speak in POTENTIALITIES when he said their WERE WMDs in Iraq. HE was SO sure. You don’t say you are sure, unless you are sure. And you don’t say there are WMD, when in actuality you have no idea, and just have a hunch that there are just parts to be assembled. I’ll take your left overs argument. If you have tomatoes, lettuce, and ham, but are missing bread, would you still say “Hey I got a sandwitch in my fridge.” NO YOU WOULDN’T. Because that would be lying. A lie that has cost us thousands of lives. My argument still stands, you don’t go to war if you are unsure, that’s rediculous. It was a private agenda from the get go.
The best intelligence at the time said he did. Whether or not he actually had them really doesn’t matter at this point. Think back though, we gave Saddam MONTHS to submit evidence that he destroyed weapons the UN themselves said he had and he submitted documents saying pretty much “kiss my arse”. Now if the UN had the backbone to actually enforce it’s own policies we wouldn’t have had to lift a finger the problem is the UN president at the time had his hand in about every cookie jar on the planet and half the permanent members of the UN had agreements with Iraq that broke the UN’s own rules.
NuRayZ said:
but enough about the past. It’s kind of pointless to argue about, what’s done is done. I’m just so excited about the next chapter on the war on terror. Chapter II:Back to Afghanistan yay <_>Yeah, let’s see how well Obama does. Since he kicked pretty much everyone with any terrorism experience out of Washington it’s a safe bet it’ll be Iraq Part 2 for a while. The smart move would have been to ignore the ® and (D) that comes up beside people’s names on TV and just put people in there that could do the job the best. Unfortunately most of those either had an ® beside their name or had too much tax fraud to take office.