I'll call the school and tell them right away!

In the mean time, why don't we have a play off? More games, more revenue and in the end some one gets to be a real #1.

Is there any outrage left for KBR doing shoddy work in Iraq that has electrocuted US Service Personnel? Or is all the venom reserved for Democrats? The Republican party discredited itself, so what's with the sour grapes?

BlauBear wrote:Is there any outrage left for KBR doing shoddy work in Iraq that has electrocuted US Service Personnel? Or is all the venom reserved for Democrats? The Republican party discredited itself, so what's with the sour grapes?

I agree BB... the letting of Billions of dollars in contracts without one competitve bid, not only overseas but after Katrina here in the States to a company that the VP was an officer of is beyond belief, especially when the Gov't squeezes all it's suppliers and vendors on everything else.

There is enough blame to go around and every party and politician in Washington is guilty of poor management of the taxpayers money. The difference is there is no real accountabilty if they rob you.

Done is done - we have plenty of work to do.

You might want to double check - several of those items were on list of cuts. The ones I recognize are:

-- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

- $650 million for digital TV coupons

- $150 million for the Smithsonian

- $44 million for repairs to the Dept. of Agriculture's headquarters

- $350 million for agriculture department computers

- $88 million to move (that's right, move) the Public Health Service into a new building.

- $87 million for a "polar ice breaking ship" (What about the ice caps melting because of global warming?)

They may have found their way back in, though.

duckgumbo wrote:Are my post counts coming up?

You're doing good Ducky... your in the top 10!!!!!!

The problem is bigger then just the 'Big 3'...
How do we compete with this:
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /902090316

Obama said he would stop the offshoring of jobs.... but then we see a picture of him with the IBM CEO who says he want's to put Americans to work, but in reality is offshoring all the US jobs to India, China, South Africa, Russia (Yes Russia) and South America.. the low cost providers.

The liberal news media trashed WalMart and the clothing industry over these very things, but not one major news story on this... makes you wonder if they have their hand out as well as our politicians to not provide fair journalism coverage.

Where do I start? For years, we have needed fair trade but that is always shouted down with two arguments:

First is the free trade argument that advocates open markets. It is absolutely clear that totally free markets will consume themselves because some people will give themselves over completely to greed and will sell others and the future for immediate profit.

Second is the "Post-Industrial Age" argument that stipulates moving to a service based economy, that the industrial age is past, and we must educate and invent our way to prosperity. This fails because it does not create wealth, and it seems to assume we (Americans) are more clever than any other nation. Absurd! The world is full of clever people! Which brings up the second fallacy of this argument: Not everyone is clever, motivated to educate, and able to invent. Some folks are simply better suited for other work. Although I believe in educational opportunity for them that want it, we need adequate work and a living wage for these folks since the alternatives are welfare or starvation.

This one needs to be filed right next to the "New Economy" theories that led to the internet bubble: We keep mistaking new tools for magic bullets.

As you point out Bob, it's impossible to responsibly compete with unrestricted exploitation of workers and the environment, and we shouldn't have to.

Leave it to a jarhead...

Mach2 to be a true racist here...he is not a black, he is malatto, high yellow and any of another other names you can apply to crosses in racial mixtures. My experience not only in this country but in the Bahamas and NZ (spent over four months each in both) mixes are not accepted openly by either race.

Innocent

Innocent wrote:Mach2 to be a true racist here...he is not a black, he is malatto, high yellow and any of another other names you can apply to crosses in racial mixtures. My experience not only in this country but in the Bahamas and NZ (spent over four months each in both) mixes are not accepted openly by either race.

Innocent

His own term was "mutt". Corruption of mulatto? Apparently Obama was restricted to nominees unassociated with the oil or arms industry? Maybe a deal with the Bush Administration.

My opinion (and a buck will get coffee), McCain was the best candidate but Palin sank him. Most voters have had it with extreme conservatives but would have gone for a moderate. Poor guy - sooo close...

Who give a hoot about race?. the people who voted for Barrack. They obviously didn't care if he was High Anything. Certainly I don't care.

As for all the cheats, sneaks and liars in the administration, it's called "Hope"!

When it comes to John McCain, it was too easy to make him look like the Rich, Old, White Guy. Besides the media couldn't help but repeat endlessly that he was too Liberal for the Conservatives and too Conservative for the Liberals. Then there was Mitt Romney, successful governor with some East Coast basis and charm and looks. He even has a good business background, he should have been a shoo-in for the Repblicans. Well, not if the media pound the drum of, "Christians won't vote for Romney." And Palin? More people decided to vote for McCain after he sellected Palin! Why she had more experience that Obama!

Nope, the media won this election. Enough people mindlessly voted for the good looking, sound bite candidate that he won and now we get to live with it. I for one am canceling my cable subscription and installing the antennae. No more bucks for them.

By the way, I wanted Condoleeza Rice for President. Condi vs Hillary would have been far more interesting election.

dwl wrote:Who give a hoot about race?. the people who voted for Barrack. They obviously didn't care if he was High Anything. Certainly I don't care.

As for all the cheats, sneaks and liars in the administration, it's called "Hope"!

When it comes to John McCain, it was too easy to make him look like the Rich, Old, White Guy. Besides the media couldn't help but repeat endlessly that he was too Liberal for the Conservatives and too Conservative for the Liberals. Then there was Mitt Romney, successful governor with some East Coast basis and charm and looks. He even has a good business background, he should have been a shoo-in for the Repblicans. Well, not if the media pound the drum of, "Christians won't vote for Romney." And Palin? More people decided to vote for McCain after he sellected Palin! Why she had more experience that Obama!

Nope, the media won this election. Enough people mindlessly voted for the good looking, sound bite candidate that he won and now we get to live with it. I for one am canceling my cable subscription and installing the antennae. No more bucks for them.

By the way, I wanted Condoleeza Rice for President. Condi vs Hillary would have been far more interesting election.

Condi vs Hillary would make for a lively campaign alright!

With Palin it wasn't an experience issue but preparation. 2012, after some prep time, will be very interesting, but it was a little too clear that Biden handled her with kid gloves in their debate. She clearly retained appeal for a bloc of voters, but even superficial scrutiny made her look pretty green.

The Media... Weird - they won't drink anyone's kool-aid, but then they're pretty gullible and can really hold a grudge! Bush did a good job of alienating them but won re-election anyway. Candidates lose during the primary marathons for a lot of reasons but it did seem like a lot of stronger Republicans lost early for reasons I sure don't understand. I did wonder if party power brokers decided 2008 was a lost cause, and they owed McCain a shot, but then I can't really make sense of that either.

I did wonder if party power brokers decided 2008 was a lost cause, and they owed McCain a shot, but then I can't really make sense of that either

BB...when in office and something goes terribly wrong with the economy, who gets blamed? Now intelligent observing persons who have studied economics and the US check and balance system of the government understand that the figurehead is not (supposed to be) a dictator, but they catch the hell anyway. Smart or dumb move on the Republican side? I think they misjudged the amount of socialist connections and power that will be amassed in this term of congress and presidental office.

Mary

I also worry that the Republicans are almost in a self destruct mode and are really out of touch with the average person anymore, that said, we certainly do not need a one party system (dictatorship) but are heading that way. All these Democratic tax and spend, 'feel good' policy's and share the wealth plans are going to hurt us in the end and people are to blind to see that these trillions of dollars are coming out of their pockets (taxpayers) and not some government hidden vault.