English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

21 answers

I think that as long as we have corporations whose wealth and profit margin are tied to contracts - then we will have lobbyists who "encourage" our leaders to engage in conflicts.

Just like when we have leaders whose wealth is tied to the oil industry - we will find ourselves knee deep in an insurgent and oil rich country whose majority population no longer wants us there.

2007-05-07 16:09:38 · answer #1 · answered by Christopher B 6 · 3 3

wow. you are totally misinformed about how the government works. i don't blame you because the media (both liberial and conservative lie). 1. Romney cannot make abortion illegal. The US Supreme Court has said that abortion is a right. The only way to make abortion illegal is a Constitutional Amendment (ie 3/4 of the states have to agree... which means Romeny (or any President) can't do anything about it. 2. Romney cannot illegalize gay marriage. Gay Marriage or marriage in general is a state issue. The only the Romney can do as President is support DOMA (Defensive of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton) which basically says the federal government doesn't have to regonize gay marriage and states don't have to recognize gay marriage of other states. Romney cannot make gay marriage illegal. 3. Romney cannot take birth control off insurance policies. Insurance companies are private companies and should be able to offer whatever coverage they want. However, through legistation (ie 1/2 +1 of the House, and 1/2 +1 of the Senate, and the President signature) can regulate what insurance can and cannot do. Usually regulation is about what companies cannot do rather than what they must do. 4. Fundalmentalist Conservatives (like the Catholic Church) who are against birth control are also against viagra, and usually all other manner of inhibiting or improving reproductive health. Because the baby has only a right to be conceived naturally by a married mother and father as per the will of the their LORD. So a true conservative would also restrict viagra. 5. Birth control restriction and viagra has more to do with insurance companies making a profit than with conserative or liberal values. 6. These are the realities our of system that the President doesn't really have the all controlling power that we believe (or is hyped) them to have.

2016-05-17 23:42:57 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

you form a corporation and provide for the needs of the military in a war zone on a civilian basis, hiring and employing civilians and tell us if the money is really big. your asking a bunch of people who have nothing more than an opinion. I know quite a few people who were making less than 25k a year who took jobs over there because they were able to make 70 to 80k in an entry level position. they make a lot but they have to pay a lot also. use logical reasoning. you take risks you may get rewards.

2007-05-07 16:21:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I'm fine with it, so long as they are American workers, and American companies, and the corporations are investing their profits in American enterprises.

IF foreign companies were making the bulk of the money, I'd be upset.

But if the money is staying here, it helps our economy, as all wars do.

We make the bombs, the planes, and the bullets, lest we forget. American workers, American stockholders.

2007-05-07 16:42:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

"Why shouldn't they? They didn't start the war and if the result of the conflict means more money for them, that's not their fault. "

That might be the stupidest answer ever...even for a retardrican

Do you really not know that corporations run the retardrican party ? Honestly, you're not really that stupid ?

The no-bid contracts are nothing more than stealing

Those no-bid contracts should be used to convict George Bush and all of his corporate butt buddies for treason

2007-05-07 16:24:57 · answer #5 · answered by Peace Warrior 4 · 2 2

A certain amount of their profits should go to the U.S. or Iraqi governments for reconstruction efforts, and not to line the pockets of the fatcats sitting in the offices back here in the U.S. and not over there risking their lives working in the occupied zone.

2007-05-07 16:12:08 · answer #6 · answered by Frank 6 · 0 1

Actually Ive seen few documentaries about those companies. And to answer to your Que. It makes me more believe in the wrong reasons that bush started this stupid, nonsense war, just to boost the US economy! not to mention the oil, regional control and to provide efficient support to Israel &......

Did you know that, despite the " no relation to Iran" policy, turned out to be that, Haliburton had been doing some work with Iran just until recently?! Just felt like to share this. this administration orchestrated by Bush and Chaney, stinks to hell!!

2007-05-07 16:30:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Democrat Liberal Senator Diane Feinstein's company was awarded hundreds of millions in military contracts.

2003: [ Democrat Feinstein ] Her husband has a $600 million army contract. "In February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in $3.1 billion during the next eight years"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

2007-05-07 16:11:19 · answer #8 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 4 1

it's difficult to call it war profiteering when one considers the government is contracting so much of the conflict out. consider this...how would you feel, to be an American soldier in Iraq working next to a blackwater employee who makes ten times your pay for doing the same job?

2007-05-07 16:13:29 · answer #9 · answered by bilez1 4 · 2 2

Why do libs have a problem with anyone EARNING a living? Where do they think the money for their unemployment checks comes from? They don't have any trouble with abortionists earning cash for killing babies!

2007-05-07 16:34:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers