Proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely

In 1994 the Republicans came up with an idea to over throw the "other" party; (the corrupt party) the one that had ruled in both houses since 1932. They did so by promising Americans that they (Republicans) would bring honesty, fairness, and justice back to the political system. Sounds good, eh?

What happened? What was the intent? Previously; I posted the old, worn, hypocritical and BS intent of the 1994 Republican congressional sponsors. Turns out it was just a matter for them to gain power (and sell it off to the highest bidders) - so they could allow those paying for their deceptions to abuse it.

At the moment, the American government is being ruled by those that the intent of the originators (most of them) intended to protect us from. Still, who in their right mind wouldn't just take the money and sell out their country?

It is obvious, Bush43, did. Cheney did, from the get go (don't we all love the free contracts going to Haliburton?). Wolfowitz sold his soul long a go, to those willing to buy it (of course he loves Hali too).

Power is a two edged sword. With the one edge one can slice thru the BS of politics; with the other they can create an atmosphere that only they are right. And?

When, one side is always right - the other always wrong. Then only one side is ever heard; and they are always right.

Which is almost what we are hearing.

Imagine, a president that can not accept that he ever made a mistake (and this from a "C" student). Of course, as we all know - Cheney has ruled the roost from day one, Bush43 is but a figure head. Dubya don't wipe his behind without Cheney giving him the nod to do so and the toilet paper to make it right. Don't ya think?

Other wise, why hasn't he accepted our losses in 'Nam ..... er, I mean - Iraq, and got us the H... outta there.

Except, that absolute power corrupts .... absolutely? Don't ya think?

I hate to break it to you, but Haliburton has no competition. There is no other company in the United States that can even begin to compete with what they provide, and it goes much deeper than you think all the way to privatized prisons.

I'm not suggesting that war profiteers aren't profiteering as always, but the roots of Haliburton and the like go back much further than 1994 and the brass and primary stockholders of these companies reads like a whos-who of the last 6 presidential cabinets, not just Republican either. This has been an issue in the making and it's funny that it only started to rouse people's attention over the last 10 years.

I really don't have any thing to argue with you about, no one is denying Haliburton is profiting it's just the way things are. What I am more concerned with than Haliburton is Worldcom getting the contract to rebuild Iraqs telecomm system. Their head was under indictment and they had just declared bankruptcy, yet they get the new contract despite their being other telecom companies and are thus rewarded when they should have been penalized all in the name of "americans keeping their jobs" when in fact the vaccuum would have created more jobs. Oh well, I guess thats where individuals get the cornhole with bankruptcies and not corporations...a corporation who declares bnakruptcy often has a strong showing when they come back on the stock market because, ya know, they now have no debt. Worldcom stock came back on the market higher than any other telecom stock AFTER they declared bankruptcy, which goes to show corporate bankruptcy gives an unfair advantage over the competition and rewards companies for pissing away their money.

So yeah, complain about Worldcom not Haliburton. Theres nothing we can do about Haliburton.

Actually, Haliburton could probably use some anti-trust type scrutiny. A firm getting as much no-bid business as it does reeks of the old Trust system.