Big oil: greed, graft, waste, war, smog and sickness

[russ_watters]

Yeah, let's just completely change the topic (talk about burden-of-proof shifting).

In a discussion of corruption where people don't seem to understand what "corruption" is, its completely relevant to give an example.

edit: btw, if it was off tpic, that would be topic-shifting, not burden of proof shifting.

edit2: There is a second reason for posting the link to an example: if people insist on weakening the definition of "corruption" to where they can apply it to the Bush administration, I'm going to force objectivity by posting similar situations. I'll certainly stipulate that under the weakened definition you guys are using that Bush's administration could be called corrupt - but so could every other administration. The word becomes useless. So your choice becomes either to be objective and acknowledge that Bush's administration's "corruption" is nowhere near the level of the corruption that Clinton's administration enjoyed or acknowledge the uselessness of your definition.

 

[russ_watters]

I've provided sourced information, and as usual you just don't want to accept it. The penalties paid by companies such as Halliburton were for fraud, and I've shown Cheney still has ties to Halliburton,

Excuse me? You've proven what? I don't doubt any of the facts you've given, just your conclusions. The part you haven't proven is that Cheney's ties to Haliburton make him complicit in any wrongdoing of theirs.

Facts are facts and I do accept them - you need to prove your conclusions (your claims).

...as well as Bush providing waivers for hand-picking of companies to be awarded bids such as subsidiaries of Halliburton.

Again, I know that's true: you need to show why it is bad.

Your obsession with definitions and minute difference, such as fraud, bid rigging, etc. versus corruption never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps this is what is wrong with this world.

I'm pedantic: I'm a big stickler for people not abusing language, as people often do in these threads. No, I won't let it slide when you arbitrarily throw around words that don't fit. Why? Its dishonest.

Fraud is a good example: fraud would be a form of corruption. The USA Today article I linked is a good example. A lot of people here seem to think the Bush admin has committed fraud - so why aren't the Democrats in Congress or the DoJ pursuing the issue? Answer: no one who'se job it is to prosecute such things agrees with you.

Along the same lines: "bid rigging". Bid rigging would be corruption. The Bush administration did not rig bids, they gave contracts to Haliburton without competitive bidding. Big, big difference.

edit: it occurs to me that people not associated with the bid process may not know what "bid rigging" is. Let me provide a hypothetical example: A developer wishes to build a building and solicits bid prices from 3 architects. Upon getting the 3 bids, the developer tells a 4th architect what price they need to beat, then gives the job to the 4th architect.

 

[Informal Logic]

…"bid rigging". Bid rigging would be corruption. The Bush administration did not rig bids, they gave contracts to Haliburton without competitive bidding.

+

…Cheney's ties to Haliburton make him

=

…" complicit in any wrongdoing of theirs.

Thanks, I couldn’t have made the point better myself.

A lot of people here seem to think the Bush admin has committed fraud - so why aren't the Democrats in Congress or the DoJ pursuing the issue?

For the same reason nothing has been investigated during this administration, including the “misinformation” about the war? Because:

...during this time of a Republican majority, proper scrutiny or investigation is [not] likely to take place...

And this where it is fair to mention DeLay and the changing of House Ethic Committee rules, and it has taken A LOT for Democrates to contest this and finally get the rules changed back.