- This topic has 49 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This looks like MasterP’s kind of article, so I will just leave this here.
Nickname said:
This looks like MasterP’s kind of article, so I will just leave this here.MasterP wouldn’t agree with this article, its slanted to the left. lol
but I find it interesting.
“any nationalization is likely to be brief, narrow and aimed at saving any assets worth saving from banks that would otherwise go under. (Which isn’t that different from what the U.S. already does with failed banks.) But to Republicans, the details seem beside the point. “Nationalization” is just another way to make voters fear Obama’s stewardship of the economy.”
if we do “nationalize” it won’t be forever, and it’s not the gonna be the evil take over the republicans claim. I say QQ Republicants!
kind of, but it reads more like a bash on republicans. The article seemed more about nationalization being inevitable, and how it isn’t the total take over the republicans are ranting about. And how it’s just scare tactics by republicans. Thats what I perceived anyway.
I was watching Mad Money the other day. He’s a loon but brought up a good point. There is more regulation on gambling and in Las Vegas than there is on Wall Street. Wouldn’t it make more sense to regulate Wall street more, it seems like corruption and greed there is far more detrimental to society than in casinos. Same with the banks, I think someone should step in when banks are not getting the job done, especially when it effects millions of people’s lives. It doesn’t have to be a total take over, like the republicans fear, but at least some more regulation, some kind of punishment, or something.
NuRayZ said:
kind of, but it reads more like a bash on republicans. The article seemed more about nationalization being inevitable, and how it isn’t the total take over the republicans are ranting about. And how it’s just scare tactics by republicans. Thats what I perceived anyway.I was watching Mad Money the other day. He’s a loon but brought up a good point. There is more regulation on gambling and in Las Vegas than there is on Wall Street. Wouldn’t it make more sense to regulate Wall street more, it seems like corruption and greed there is far more detrimental to society than in casinos. Same with the banks, I think someone should step in when banks are not getting the job done, especially when it effects millions of people’s lives. It doesn’t have to be a total take over, like the republicans fear, but at least some more regulation, some kind of punishment, or something.
I disagree, the regulation on wall street is if you *edited* up, your company goes under. That’s how it should be. What about the investors you ask? They should be properly tuned into their investments to the point that they know if some *edited* is going to go down. Why can’t we have deregulation and let the companys run themselves? Because the democrats decide to step in and bail them all out. Yeah well if thats how its gonna be then I guess they need the regulation cause now my tax dollars are going towards it. See what I mean? We shouldn’t have bailouts because its a market ecomony and we should be letting it run itself instead of trying to control it.
NuRayZ said:
if we do “nationalize” it won’t be forever, and it’s not the gonna be the evil take over the republicans claim. I say QQ Republicants!What country has ever un-nationalized a large industry? I can’t think of any since the US national bank and it practically went under it failed so hard.
Anything the government controls is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Hard.
MasterP said:
Anything the government controls is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Hard.Lies!
wait…. half lies. Dependent on the style of the government, a strong central nationalistic government will not fail if a bank, organization, or cooperation is taken by the govt, but since the US was bred to be weak, it cannot do that as it pleases and bank, organizations, and banks fail.
How do you figure whatever the government controls does bad? Look at our baking system now for the most part the big banks are owned by the government and its just the way it needs to be. I dunno if you all saw 60 min this past sunday but they came up with a good idea. Setting a limit on how big a business can get. After it gets to the point where our banks are at now it is forced to split up. If you do this then you can afford to let them fail. Its a sad truth but the end of free trade is here.
The french government has actually denationalized a lot of it’s economy in the last twenty years.
The military should not be privatized, pretty obvious why(The rule of law fellas)
Salon is generally full of a lot of *edited*, especially joan walsh, the editor in chief. The guest columnist and dike in residence(i actually love reading her) camille paglia usually hits the nail on the head though.
Your principle of government failing at whatever it does is not as apodictic as you believe masterp. Do you think about it very much or is something you repeat in your head every time you see the government incidentally *edited*ing up.
Brian said:
The french government has actually denationalized a lot of it’s economy in the last twenty years.The military should not be privatized, pretty obvious why(The rule of law fellas)
Salon is generally full of a lot of *edited*, especially joan walsh, the editor in chief. The guest columnist and dike in residence(i actually love reading her) camille paglia usually hits the nail on the head though.
Your principle of government failing at whatever it does is not as apodictic as you believe masterp. Do you think about it very much or is something you repeat in your head every time you see the government incidentally *edited*ing up.
Well if a Republican can’t do it in eight years, there is no way a BLACK DEMOCRAT man can succeed. The logic being: obviously to any republican, the right is always right, and if they were ever wrong (coincidently the last eight years), any other way can’t possibly be right. Any other way is wrong apparently. So what could be worse than wrong? Oh that’s right, the end of the world/USA/Democracy/Capitalism!!! :arrowhead: Silly Elephants…lol
Citan001 said:
How do you figure whatever the government controls does bad? Look at our baking system now for the most part the big banks are owned by the government and its just the way it needs to be. I dunno if you all saw 60 min this past sunday but they came up with a good idea. Setting a limit on how big a business can get. After it gets to the point where our banks are at now it is forced to split up. If you do this then you can afford to let them fail. Its a sad truth but the end of free trade is here.I don’t watch CBS, mainly because they’re full of *edited*. I would love to know, however, why you feel it’s ok for a company to be punished for success. If a company has a sound business model and beats the crap out of the competition is it then right for the government to punish that success by breaking the company apart to allow less competitive competitors to remain in business? In a FREE society, a business succeeds or fails because of the decisions its leaders make. In an OPPRESSED society, the government decides who the winners and loser are, regardless of who is actually winning or losing. How does that make sense?
Brian said:
The french government has actually denationalized a lot of it’s economy in the last twenty years.Your principle of government failing at whatever it does is not as apodictic as you believe masterp. Do you think about it very much or is something you repeat in your head every time you see the government incidentally *edited*ing up.
So how many screw-ups does the government get before we are allowed to comment? Last I checked I was America, not China, I don’t have to wait until a regime change before I’m allowed to comment on a failure although it seems like you Obama boys are all about letting the country go to hell in a handbasket before letting others comment on it. I don’t remember the same courtesy being given to Bush, although I’m sure his failures were “different”.
NuRayZ said:
Well if a Republican can’t do it in eight years, there is no way a BLACK DEMOCRAT man can succeed. The logic being: obviously to any republican, the right is always right, and if they were ever wrong (coincidently the last eight years), any other way can’t possibly be right. Any other way is wrong apparently. So what could be worse than wrong? Oh that’s right, the end of the world/USA/Democracy/Capitalism!!! :arrowhead: Silly Elephants…lolSo the entire history of our market and how things work is wrong and Obama is right? Gee, if only Bush had this sort of blind loyalty he could have invaded the entirety of the Middle East and half of Europe before anyone woke up
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.
MasterP said:
So the entire history of our market and how things work is wrong and Obama is right? Gee, if only Bush had this sort of blind loyalty he could have invaded the entirety of the Middle East and half of Europe before anyone woke up
I wish we had this thread years ago. lol
It’s not blind loyalty, it’s just me dealing with what I voted for. But lets not talk about blind loyalty, seeing how that’s what led us to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…oh wait.
I wish we had this thread years ago. lol
It’s not blind loyalty, it’s just me dealing with what I voted for. But lets not talk about blind loyalty, seeing how that’s what led us to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…oh wait.
NuRayZ said:
I wish we had this thread years ago. lolIt’s not blind loyalty, it’s just me dealing with what I voted for. But lets not talk about blind loyalty, seeing how that’s what led us to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…oh wait.
they were there what are you talking about?
MajorMajorMajor said:
they were there what are you talking about?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.
they were? I cant tell if you were joking or not…I dunno how well you all follow the news when it comes to the economy but I follow it like a hawk and the sad part is that yes some companies are so big and vital that the government cant let them fail. As it stands now the government has some stake in every major bank in the us right now. They forced Bank of America to take tarp funds and with it BofA had to give some stock to the government. It will happen more and more often as we get deeper and deeper into the depression. America was the beacon of hope for free trade but everyone sees what a mess we made and they are no longer supporting free trade.
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.Wikipedia for the win!
Consider the Source
My and my friends edited Ray Jackendoff’s wiki page to contain several innuendos, and detract from the truth of the article.
Conspiracy Theory Moment: There are still many areas in Iraq that we either a) do not control or
do not want to control that have not been checked yet, and that may or may not be inhabitable. Therefore you cannot say with 100% certainty that they are/were no WMDs in Iraq. :shiftyeyes_anim: Course personally I just do not trust what the media tells me, and I do not care either way if they were there or not. I’m just happy my cousin is coming home soon…. then going to Afghanistan YAY
Citan001 said:
they were? I cant tell if you were joking or not…I dunno how well you all follow the news when it comes to the economy but I follow it like a hawk and the sad part is that yes some companies are so big and vital that the government cant let them fail. As it stands now the government has some stake in every major bank in the us right now. They forced Bank of America to take tarp funds and with it BofA had to give some stock to the government. It will happen more and more often as we get deeper and deeper into the depression. America was the beacon of hope for free trade but everyone sees what a mess we made and they are no longer supporting free trade.I kinda agree.
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.
MajorMajorMajor said:
Consider the SourceMy and my friends edited Ray Jackendoff’s wiki page to contain several innuendos, and detract from the truth of the article.
Conspiracy Theory Moment: There are still many areas in Iraq that we either a) do not control or
do not want to control that have not been checked yet, and that may or may not be inhabitable. Therefore you cannot say with 100% certainty that they are/were no WMDs in Iraq. :shiftyeyes_anim: Course personally I just do not trust what the media tells me, and I do not care either way if they were there or not. I’m just happy my cousin is coming home soon…. then going to Afghanistan YAY
Lies!!!
Wikipedia 4 LYF!!!
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.
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…
MasterP said:
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.
The problem is they did not find any. They found pieces here and there and that automatically made it ok for them to say there was WMDs. And technically speaking from a fat persons POV, if you can’t eat or use the leftovers cause they are too old…they DONT exist.
MasterP said:
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?I agree with you on this one 100%. We have hundreds of thousands of mom and pop stores that get shut down daily and we never wrote anything into our constitution or passed a bill helping them out. Its bull*edited* that anybodies money has to go to a greedy CEO’s hand. What they do with the money is put it into a billion dollar bonus check and call it a night.
MasterP said:
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.This is true. If you are going to blindly toss money at a problem you are not fixing it, at all. The problem is that we are outsourcing too much and its causing major corruption in companies. If you had the ability to pay workers $75-$150 a day for hard work or $75-150 a month for hard work which one would you choose? Exactly. Cutting corners and saving money is what big companies are good at and they are now paying for mistakes. The problem is we are paying for it as well.
And its not stealing from the rich only. I know that if I support a company in the slightest way I have now written some douchbags pay check. It sickens me. Which is why I only go to certain places… I know people can bring up the thread about headphones and the other one about the Olympics where I said go to Walmart to get headphones and DONT go to the Olympcs because China is *edited*ed up. I support my Local Walmart because I live in the middle of Maine where it is 45minutes to drive anywhere decent to get anything decent that isnt Walmart, Hannaford…as a poor college student this is impossible to go all over the place for something simple. It isn’t necessary.
MasterP said:
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.
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.
Your own quote a few posts back said there were WMD components there. You killed your own argument…
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.
Secondly:
Oh too biased for you? Keep thinking he never lied about his war. His words say otherwise.
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.
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
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
If politicians and bleeding heart citizens didn’t handicap the soldiers we currently have fighting the whole thing could have been done with already. When we fought in WW2 we were a far more effective force due to the fact that the military was in charge of guess what the military. I know this is a novel idea but I think we should go back to it as it got results. Bleeding heart pacifists go ohh no we can’t have our soldiers blowing up that hospital or ohh no we can’t blow up that school where will the people go. Well if their armies want to hide weapons in it and fill it with people so that we won’t bomb it, they effectively take out some of our best weapons. World war 2 they have a ball bearing plant in a city lets say hamelburg and we need to knock it out, we wiped out the entire area around it. Collateral damage happens its called war for a reason and people need to realize that and stop hamstringing our military because those same people given the oppurtunity would not return those same courtesies back. They blow a building we blow up a block of buildings, they blow up a block we blow up a town, etc… they have to learn there are consequences and that its futile to engage in the activity. The israelis had it right before they stopped. they shoot a rocket they blew up the street it came from. They mobilize more rockets, israel levels every block they passed on. It may not be very clean or nice but no war is.
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.
KaMiKaZe said:
If politicians and bleeding heart citizens didn’t handicap the soldiers we currently have fighting the whole thing could have been done with already. When we fought in WW2 we were a far more effective force due to the fact that the military was in charge of guess what the military. I know this is a novel idea but I think we should go back to it as it got results. Bleeding heart pacifists go ohh no we can’t have our soldiers blowing up that hospital or ohh no we can’t blow up that school where will the people go. Well if their armies want to hide weapons in it and fill it with people so that we won’t bomb it, they effectively take out some of our best weapons. World war 2 they have a ball bearing plant in a city lets say hamelburg and we need to knock it out, we wiped out the entire area around it. Collateral damage happens its called war for a reason and people need to realize that and stop hamstringing our military because those same people given the oppurtunity would not return those same courtesies back. They blow a building we blow up a block of buildings, they blow up a block we blow up a town, etc… they have to learn there are consequences and that its futile to engage in the activity. The israelis had it right before they stopped. they shoot a rocket they blew up the street it came from. They mobilize more rockets, israel levels every block they passed on. It may not be very clean or nice but no war is.Eye for and eye basically, sure its been around for thousands and thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it as right. I think its wrong. Call me a bleeding heart, but I personally think humans are better than that. I don’t think what either side is doing is right. War and everything that comes with it may be necessary to survive in the past, but when it boils down to it, War is going to destroy us all.
Now you can think, “these people will never understand us, that they don’t want to negotiate.” I agree, some of them are hopeless. Simply taking them out, is indeed effective, but again is a step backwards in my mind in terms of our progression as a species. Blowing them up brings up more complex issues. Those blocks that were blown up, are gone now. Anyone who wasn’t an enemy who may have had friends/associations/families or anyone there, anything there, is now an enemy. You see the endless cycle?
I’m not saying we should give up our fights right this second, and I’m not dogging any soldier because of them I have the freedom to type this reply. The evolution of war has changed, and eventually it will change again. We will eventually have to evolve from warring altogether, or we will end up just blowing each other off the planet.
NuRayZ said:
Eye for and eye basically, sure its been around for thousands and thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it as right. I think its wrong. Call me a bleeding heart, but I personally think humans are better than that. I don’t think what either side is doing is right. War and everything that comes with it may be necessary to survive in the past, but when it boils down to it, War is going to destroy us all.Now you can think, “these people will never understand us, that they don’t want to negotiate.” I agree, some of them are hopeless. Simply taking them out, is indeed effective, but again is a step backwards in my mind in terms of our progression as a species. Blowing them up brings up more complex issues. Those blocks that were blown up, are gone now. Anyone who wasn’t an enemy who may have had friends/associations/families or anyone there, anything there, is now an enemy. You see the endless cycle?
I’m not saying we should give up our fights right this second, and I’m not dogging any soldier because of them I have the freedom to type this reply. The evolution of war has changed, and eventually it will change again. We will eventually have to evolve from warring altogether, or we will end up just blowing each other off the planet.
I’m just saying if you crush the will to fight they will no longer fight. It has been proven over and over again throughout different wars. You have to make it too costly for them to continue and then they’ll stop. By us handcuffing our soldiers we needlessly endager them and cost them more lives in the field. We need to take the handcuffs off and let those in the field handle it as they feel it should be handled cause there the ones who live it everyday instead of politicians in washington making those decisions for them
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.