Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
I thought I was being direct and responding to most of the issues being presented. Never did I think I had substituted or distorted the arguments to make them easier to question.
|
You kept saying that because the board appointees weren't government employees, then the government therefore couldn't possibly control the company.
That argument doesn't follow any logic, so it can't be "disproven". That's a straw man.
Anyway, the point is, the government did appoint the board, and as a result, I think the administration controls the company. Anyone can be a political puppet, they don't have to come from government.
If you feel otherwise, fine, but I think the (few) actual facts we have, would lead an objective person to conclude that the administration is exercising some degree of control over the company.
I think a logical debate would be about the degree of control, not whether it exists.