Uhh... In this instance you are talking about the entire economy of the 'Company' you govern.
If you were to say that you did not know about the financial affairs of that company, and you left it totally up to everyone else, then yes you are still to blame. Bush was warned. He had information about what was happening on wall street, about the greed and the corruption. Other heads of state warned him. He ignored or rejected their advice. Then the economy crashes. The greed, gluttony and corruption in America has now has a ripple effect throughout the world. How can you say that he is not responsible? 2008/10/10 Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Always using the extreme to prove your point. Again (and again and again), > I've said that Bush does not have SOLE responsibility. You seem to blame him > and no one else for everything, no matter how removed from the problem he > is. There is NO WAY any leader can know everything happening, especially > with a country this size and world this complex. That's why there is > delegation of responsibility. That's why there is a division of power. > According to your way of speaking things, Bush is responsible for every > paperclip stolen by the lowest federal employee. No compromise. That's > ludicrous. And to say he's responsible for my actions, your actions and/or > the actions of some business man stretches the point far past the breaking > point. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:273367 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
