Jump to content

2008 US Election


Mont Royale

Recommended Posts

Only one brief touch on Palin's "experience".

6 years as a mayor, with a town size smaller than my home town in NY (less than 10,000). On the qualifications to be mayor, my town elected my high school gym teacher twice, a social studies teacher once, and a math teacher another time. (The social studies teacher eventually became the city's judge.) Needless to say, I don't think that gave any of my high school teachers enough experience to be VP. Even a majority of the party agrees that Palin was a bad choice, and that her lack of experience undermined the "lack of experience" attack that was being initially launched against Obama. (Yeah, I know, I left out the 2 years of governor, of nearly the least populated state in the country.) And to be clear, I find my above reference to just be kind of a funny comparison.

I agree though, talk is cheap, and the president elect has a LOT of work ahead of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Talk is cheap.

I'll give him a chance but his policies will make things much worse. Bailouts, 1 trillion in new spending, entitlements for everyone who he considers isn't rich, free health care.

Who is going to pay for all that?

What's with all the Palin bashing? If you don't like her policies fine but blaming her for everything is crazy.

She has more executive experience then Obama so i'm not getting that arguement either. I don't agree with some of her policies but she wasn't running for president.

Well, I don't much think you can put the current bail-outs on Obama whether they do, or don't, pan out...they were a bi-partisan effort under Bush.

I also think entitlements needs a LOT of defining...I absolutely hate programs that are designed (and many are...) to keep people from actually becoming more productive. But the US could do a lot more to help those people who are truly in need...jmho from the outside.

As for the 1 trillion in new spending...you do realise that one of the first things Bush did in his first term was to cut 1.6 trillion in taxes. He didn't roll any of it back after 9/11 knowing that they were about to start a very costly war. The US could have paid of it's debt by 2008-10 without the tax cuts or wars and assuming that the economy kept its growth(which it did till now)! Now Afgahnistan needed to happen IMO so maybe that cost pushed that plan back slightly...instead, Bush has increased debt HUGE. If not, much of that stuff could've been paid for with the US debt interest alone. Bush was truly an idiot. For those who like to blame Greenspan for the current mess I think it's worth noting that even he wanted Bush's original tax cuts rolled back so they could continue to pay down the debt.

I've already commented in threads on the cost of health care BUT the US could likely implement a universal health care plan and the end result would be that your existing taxes would be essentially LESS then what you currently pay in taxes and health insurance. Currently, most of the US pays the equivalent in Taxes + Health Insurance to what Canadians pay in taxes (which include health coverage). Then figure that Canada has a bigger geography with less people (ie. higher infrastructure costs per capita), much higher education funding, WAAYYY more government social programs and WAAYY more government run things either way...and I think it's fair to say that you could easily set up universal health care in the US and actually save most people money versus their current costs. It would be even more affordable if the US stops throwing money at it's Iraq war...

What's really funny is that I bet there are a lot of Canadian posters who think I'm a hardcore right wing Conservative based on my comments for the Canadian election...and most Americans would read this and say I'm pretty left wing...LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really funny is that I bet there are a lot of Canadian posters who think I'm a hardcore right wing Conservative based on my comments for the Canadian election...and most Americans would read this and say I'm pretty left wing...LOL

Haha. I have to say that you're my favorite political poster here on HW. You cut through BS and don't often post any of your own. You definitely seem fair and balanced. (For real, not like FoxNews, haha.) I really respect people whom it is difficult to label one way or the other.

What's with all the Palin bashing? If you don't like her policies fine but blaming her for everything is crazy.

She has more executive experience then Obama so i'm not getting that arguement either. I don't agree with some of her policies but she wasn't running for president.

I would say Obama and Palin are about equals in terms of experience. Basically you have 1.5 years of being governor vs. 1.5 years of being a senator. Being governor carries more personal responsibility, while being a senator lets you deal with bigger, national issues. I won't credit being mayor for 6 years of a town of less than 10,000 as giving her experience that will help her at a national level. And even though 72 isn't incredibly old these days, he is still seen as being pretty old. Thus, you can be sure there were people who feared she would become president before the end of his term. But like I said, the last 4 years are far more responsible for the ticket's loss than Palin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's with all the Palin bashing? If you don't like her policies fine but blaming her for everything is crazy.

She has more executive experience then Obama so i'm not getting that arguement either. I don't agree with some of her policies but she wasn't running for president.

Simple, people had to do everything they could to make sure there was no chance in hell should would become President at this point of time... you can't become arguably become the world's most powerful person and not believe in evolution, believing that global warming is probably not man-made, not knowing the name of the Canadian PM (ok, she was on the spot and maybe she didn't quite understand because of the accent), not knowing what the Vice President of the US does before being asked to fill that role, not knowing much about the world outside the U, and especially, and especially not being aware that Africa is a freakin' continent!!!

Maybe she'll be ready in 8 years, and she does have some qualities... but the mere possibility that she could have become President in the near future was just plain scary!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of those things are rumors. If they are proven true then so be it. I don't remember hearing her saying she didn't beleive in evolution, some people said since she was religous and some of her views she must not beleive in eveolution. I never heard her say that.

Global warming come on, there are well respected SCIENTISTS that don't beleive in global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, people had to do everything they could to make sure there was no chance in hell should would become President at this point of time... you can't become arguably become the world's most powerful person and not believe in evolution, believing that global warming is probably not man-made, not knowing the name of the Canadian PM (ok, she was on the spot and maybe she didn't quite understand because of the accent), not knowing what the Vice President of the US does before being asked to fill that role, not knowing much about the world outside the U, and especially, and especially not being aware that Africa is a freakin' continent!!!

Maybe she'll be ready in 8 years, and she does have some qualities... but the mere possibility that she could have become President in the near future was just plain scary!!!

Didn't you mean just palin scary. HAR HAR HAR...<slaps knee>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of those things are rumors. If they are proven true then so be it. I don't remember hearing her saying she didn't beleive in evolution, some people said since she was religous and some of her views she must not beleive in eveolution. I never heard her say that.

Global warming come on, there are well respected SCIENTISTS that don't beleive in global warming.

Off topic a bit BUT there are almost no respected scientists that don't believe in global warming...many disagree on the CAUSE of global warming, but almost every reputed scientist in the world knows that it's happening. In fact, I've never heard of one legit scientific report that says global warming is a lie...but I'll say almost none for CYA purposes.

You can't really argue with a metric that says the world is X% warmer. It's the WHY that has been in dispute...many think it's carbon based emissions, some don't. The quick analogy I can think of off the top of my head is like: what caused the speed on a bobsled...we all KNOW it's going fast down the track, no one disputes the speed metric...but what percentage of it's speed comes from the guys pushing the cart at the top of the track and how much is just gravity pulling them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of those things are rumors. If they are proven true then so be it. I don't remember hearing her saying she didn't beleive in evolution, some people said since she was religous and some of her views she must not beleive in eveolution. I never heard her say that.

Global warming come on, there are well respected SCIENTISTS that don't beleive in global warming.

She still didn't know that Africa was a continent... right there is a huge sign that someone should never be in a position to lead a country... let alone the United States of America...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. I have to say that you're my favorite political poster here on HW. You cut through BS and don't often post any of your own. You definitely seem fair and balanced. (For real, not like FoxNews, haha.) I really respect people whom it is difficult to label one way or the other.

I would say Obama and Palin are about equals in terms of experience. Basically you have 1.5 years of being governor vs. 1.5 years of being a senator. Being governor carries more personal responsibility, while being a senator lets you deal with bigger, national issues. I won't credit being mayor for 6 years of a town of less than 10,000 as giving her experience that will help her at a national level. And even though 72 isn't incredibly old these days, he is still seen as being pretty old. Thus, you can be sure there were people who feared she would become president before the end of his term. But like I said, the last 4 years are far more responsible for the ticket's loss than Palin.

+7 years as a state senator

+12 years of teaching constitutional law one of the best law schools in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 80's it was the Democrats i beleive who were on the global cooling thing. They wanted to light fires on the polar ice caps to warm up the world. That was a good one.

Did you actually here Palin say Africa wasn't a continent, i have seen no such video or it in print. Just rumors. If have evidence of this i would like to see or read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

figured i should weigh in!

sure, i'm disappointed in the outcome. i think Obama will lead the US in the wrong direction (not saying Bush led it in the proper direction)

yes, i still think Palin was the right choice as VP. it completely motivated the Republican base and before her nomination, the ticket had zero chance. with Palin, the ticket has about as much chance as it ever would have had. the biggest mistake with Palin was the fellow Republicans who failed to answer the questions about Palin's inexperience properly. the answer to the question was "she has as much or more experience as Barack Obama" - then - let the debate go from that point on whether to agree or disagree.

all in all - i'm not surprised by the outcome at all. i'm more surprised with how well McCain did in an election the Dems should have found impossible to give away after 8 years of Bush and the state of the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

figured i should weigh in!

sure, i'm disappointed in the outcome. i think Obama will lead the US in the wrong direction (not saying Bush led it in the proper direction)

yes, i still think Palin was the right choice as VP. it completely motivated the Republican base and before her nomination, the ticket had zero chance. with Palin, the ticket has about as much chance as it ever would have had. the biggest mistake with Palin was the fellow Republicans who failed to answer the questions about Palin's inexperience properly. the answer to the question was "she has as much or more experience as Barack Obama" - then - let the debate go from that point on whether to agree or disagree.

all in all - i'm not surprised by the outcome at all. i'm more surprised with how well McCain did in an election the Dems should have found impossible to give away after 8 years of Bush and the state of the economy.

Look what 8 years of Bush did. You'd want 4 more years of the same no-clue regime? You think Obama wtih lead the US in the wrong direction? Are you kidding me!? Any direction away from the current one is a good direction.

Palin was a bimbo, nothing more nothing less. I know 8 yrs old kids smarter than her.

Sometimes you just have to put your "moral bias" aside and realize that competence is the bottom line deal breaker and only Obama/Biden had it. The culture war is over my friend. Time to let go of all those Reagan-era pipe dreams and join the rest of the civilized world into the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moral of the story here, revvv, is apparently you shouldn't weigh in unless you win.

it's cowardly to only weigh in unless you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look what 8 years of Bush did. You'd want 4 more years of the same no-clue regime? You think Obama wtih lead the US in the wrong direction? Are you kidding me!? Any direction away from the current one is a good direction.

Palin was a bimbo, nothing more nothing less. I know 8 yrs old kids smarter than her.

Sometimes you just have to put your "moral bias" aside and realize that competence is the bottom line deal breaker and only Obama/Biden had it. The culture war is over my friend. Time to let go of all those Reagan-era pipe dreams and join the rest of the civilized world into the 21st century.

Koz I think you should allow the man his opinions without flaming him because he has them...disagreement is one thing but I think you're over the top there.

Plus he's right that Palin did excite the Republican ticket (let's leave the "excite" jokes aside). Though I also think he neglects to mention that her inexperience (and I think it's ridiculous to claim it's the same as Obama IMO) and her lack of ANY useful knowledge is what ultimately hurt them in the final weeks. In the end Palin was the wrong choice...she forced the Republican ticket to climax too soon (do what you will with that one...lol). In my honest opinion, the people behind McCain, who pushed for Palin's nomination, were just looking for another dumb puppet that they could control.

I don't think it's a culture war in the US...I think it's a class war on top of the continued polarization of the extreme idealists. It's almost impossible for 2 parties to represent most people, so the moderate/centrist types end up feeling dominated by the vocal extremists who push their parties closer to the ends of the spectrum. Ultimately that vocal crowd moves more and more people with them and pushes the boundaries of the spectrum further apart leading to a lot of discontent among voters.

I don't think Obama is the second coming of Jesus like soo many people are making him out to be. In reality, he'll never be able to live up to the billing but I think he was the smarter candidate, and held more moderate bi-partisan views. I think many of the far left thinkers in the US will be shocked at some of the things Obama does, or doesn't, do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think Obama wtih lead the US in the wrong direction? Are you kidding me!? Any direction away from the current one is a good direction.

Well, for one thing, he wants to put the United States in the Stone Age in terms of weaponry and defense systems:

- He wants a world without nuclear weapons. Guess what? We all do. If the rest of the world, however, isn't disarming and the United States is, then that is not a good idea. He wants to stop producing any new nuclear weapons, dismantle ones we already have, while basically hoping other countries do also. He damn well better have an agreement with these other countries before he starts cutting back our own arsenal.

- He wants to cut funding on unproven missile defense systems, which makes no sense to me. If we cut funding on those systems, then they can't become proven, and thus protect us. I would think that defensive weapons would be the #1 thing he would want to spend money on in terms of the military.

- He wants to reduce the development of new types of weapons. Once again, that is good in theory, but a horrible idea if the rest of the world isn't doing the same thing. If that is the case, then the US will be at a huge disadvantage in any potential confrontation

All in all, I think he is far too idealistic. Like I've said, these are all nice ideas, but not good ideas unless the entire world follows these initiatives also. Even then it would be dangerous, because you can be sure there would be nutjobs all over the place doing tests and development on there own and countries would probably even secretly fund them.

I do, however, hope Obama has a successful presidency. I want to like him. I hope he really ends up being as bi-partisan as he has been talking about lately. I hope he can calm the political landscape and bring the two extremes back towards the middle. I hope he can lead as well as he speaks. I hope his changes work out for the better, even if I don't think they will on some issues. I hope he does well, but not well enough to get re-elected, unless the next 4 years are awesome. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

figured i should weigh in!

sure, i'm disappointed in the outcome. i think Obama will lead the US in the wrong direction (not saying Bush led it in the proper direction)

yes, i still think Palin was the right choice as VP. it completely motivated the Republican base and before her nomination, the ticket had zero chance. with Palin, the ticket has about as much chance as it ever would have had. the biggest mistake with Palin was the fellow Republicans who failed to answer the questions about Palin's inexperience properly. the answer to the question was "she has as much or more experience as Barack Obama" - then - let the debate go from that point on whether to agree or disagree.

I fundamentally disagree with most of this. I don't think that McCain was going to win no matter who he picked as VP, but I think Palin was an inexcusably short-sighted choice. You talk about exciting the base, but look at Obama and the Hillary Clinton voters - those who said they would never come back to the party. He could have done the short-sighted thing and picked Clinton and maybe get those voters back, but instead he knew that in the end those voters really had nowhere else to go. He chose the guy he wanted and - shock - all that talk about PUMA turned out to be BS.

I see the same thing with the evangelical right. You think rapture theologans are going to want to spend money on infrastructure and environmental protection? You think they are going to support socially liberal policies? Maybe they weren't in love with McCain, but they would have held their noses and pulled the lever. What if instead of Palin, McCain had chosen Romney? I, personally, think Romney's economic philosophy is pure crap, but when the credit crisis exploded McCain could have said "I have experience and economic expertise on my ticket". Maybe that would have netted him another percent or two?

As far as Palin having as much experience as Obama, that too (as I pointed out earlier in this thread) is complete and total BS. Palin's life did not begin when she became governor and Obama's did not begin when he became a US senator.

Even taking your position, arguendo, the objective should not have been to find someone with "as much" experience as Obama. Up until the Palin pick, the McCain line had been (for whatever it was worth) that Obama was unqualified due to lack of experience - picking Palin essentially nullified that argument. Your suggested response to the experience issue was repeated endlessly by campaign surrogates and it just didn't stick.

Aside from the pure strategic gaffe this represents, look at how tactically stupid the McCain campaign was in executing it -> "Well, actually, Palin has more executive experience than either Obama or Biden". I think we all heard this line repeated multiple times. I think most people had the exact same reaction - "Oh, executive experience is the dispositive qualification for the presidency... hmmm... who else doesn't have executive experience? JOHN MCCAIN." John McCain never even had a command in the navy, for god sakes. It was an inexcusably stupid thing to say, especially considering that Biden, whose experience was being explicitly bashed, had basically the same governmental experience as McCain.

As far as exciting the base and increasing the turnout - blegh. The total vote turnout was only a point or two higher than the 2004 election. But we know that Obama really got his vote out - aside from the higher relative proportion of youth and minority voters, we also see how many lapsed and first time voters cast ballots this election. Why then did the total vote numbers barely move? because Bush voters stayed home! How can anyone say Palin energized the base and put them on the McCain train when the numbers show that the Bush base did not come to vote? Evangelicals (I'm excluding fiscal conservatives as part of the base that would be energized by Palin... because they wouldn't be... and weren't) voted for McCain in about the same proportion that they voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, they just didn't vote. So sacrificing your one semi-plausible argument against Obama's capacity in order to get the religious right? Didn't work, bad move.

all in all - i'm not surprised by the outcome at all. i'm more surprised with how well McCain did in an election the Dems should have found impossible to give away after 8 years of Bush and the state of the economy.

Obama had like the biggest electoral and popular vote victory since Reagan/Mondale. That's close? About 35%-40% of the population will vote Republican no matter what, about 40% of the population will vote Democrat no matter what. How big an vote lead (~8M votes for ~6%) do you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing, he wants to put the United States in the Stone Age in terms of weaponry and defense systems:

- He wants a world without nuclear weapons. Guess what? We all do. If the rest of the world, however, isn't disarming and the United States is, then that is not a good idea. He wants to stop producing any new nuclear weapons, dismantle ones we already have, while basically hoping other countries do also. He damn well better have an agreement with these other countries before he starts cutting back our own arsenal.

- He wants to cut funding on unproven missile defense systems, which makes no sense to me. If we cut funding on those systems, then they can't become proven, and thus protect us. I would think that defensive weapons would be the #1 thing he would want to spend money on in terms of the military.

- He wants to reduce the development of new types of weapons. Once again, that is good in theory, but a horrible idea if the rest of the world isn't doing the same thing. If that is the case, then the US will be at a huge disadvantage in any potential confrontation

All in all, I think he is far too idealistic. Like I've said, these are all nice ideas, but not good ideas unless the entire world follows these initiatives also. Even then it would be dangerous, because you can be sure there would be nutjobs all over the place doing tests and development on there own and countries would probably even secretly fund them.

I do, however, hope Obama has a successful presidency. I want to like him. I hope he really ends up being as bi-partisan as he has been talking about lately. I hope he can calm the political landscape and bring the two extremes back towards the middle. I hope he can lead as well as he speaks. I hope his changes work out for the better, even if I don't think they will on some issues. I hope he does well, but not well enough to get re-elected, unless the next 4 years are awesome. ;)

I just can't believe this...

"Rest of the World has to follow"??? Are you f***ing kidding me? The US' military spendings account for 46%, about HALF the total military spending of the World. You read right. The USA, ALONE, spend almost as much on military as the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD ALTOGETHER. And you won't cut into almost HALF A TRILLION annual expenditures unless every other country does do? You can't be serious!?

What do you need all those military spendings for anyway? Newsflash: the Cold War has been over for 20 years. Oh, right, there's terrorists... What good are your fuggin' missile defense and new weapons against underground kamikazes who hide amongst the population?

Are you scared the Chinese are gonna invade or something? Guess what, if the Chinese wants to invade, they're gonna invade and that will be all she wrote. No missile defense or new weapons are gonna stop them. They have 1.3 billion people, they're gonna send waves after waves of soldiers until you dont have any ammo left.

Oh, must be Iran then. You need half a trillion to keep Iran humble, right? Iran and it's 2 billion defense budget. About 200 times less than the US'. Not even the biggest defense budget in the Persion Gulf.

Wake the F up bro, armament should be the least of your worries right now. Get your priorities straight. Besides, all the high-tech missiles and weapons in the World are useless when you have shitty intel, dipshit officers and clueless soldiers. You'd be better off putting at least some of that money elsewhere, say in healthcare. You could start right now by getting anti-paranoia medecine.

Jesus Christ... 8 years of complete and utter self-sabotage and you're still asking for more of the same? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can throw all the numbers you want at me, but you're not going to convince me that it is a good idea to disarm and stop producing new weapons. I have no problem with reducing spending so that the money is used wisely and not wasted, but there's no way I support drastic cutbacks that will have us back in the middle ages in just a matter of years. Instead of cutting funding, just do a better job of giving out contracts. Spend the money responsibly and costs will be reduced without limiting our defensive capabilities. If that is what Obama means by not funding unproven systems, then I'm all for it. I'm not talking about armament, I'm simply talking about not disarming and keeping up to date. A world without war is a nice thought, but sadly war is a part of history that just keeps on repeating. Forgive me for wanting to be prepared for anything the future may bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for wanting to be prepared for anything the future may bring.

Yes, to be prepared for the future isnt to spend in education for the future generations, in research to cure debilitating diseases, in clean renewable energy resources that preserves the environment, in universal healthcare. No, to prepare for the the future is to keep spending trillions on more useless missiles and weapons when you already have spent trillions on useless missiles and weapons.

You, sir, are guilty of indecent and criminal midjudgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, to be prepared for the future isnt to spend in education for the future generations, in research to cure debilitating diseases, in clean renewable energy resources that preserves the environment, in universal healthcare. No, to prepare for the the future is to keep spending trillions on more useless missiles and weapons when you already have spent trillions on useless missiles and weapons.

You, sir, are guilty of indecent and criminal midjudgement.

:rolleyes: It's nice to know you actually read my post. Oh wait, you didn't You completely missed the part where I said I am completely fine with cutting defense spending responsibly, in a way that doesn't hurt us. What do you think I thought we should do with those savings? Throw a party?

Seriously, do you really think I don't believe we need to fund schools, research, etc.? I'm not an idiot, sir. At the same time, I realize that all that money will be wasted on corpses if we are attacked and can't properly defend ourselves. Defense spending is just as important as funding the other things you mentioned. Dominant world powers, as the US has been since WWII are always targets. There is always someone waiting to become the next dominant world power.

The problem is not with funding defense, the problem is the wasteful spending. For example, the government often goes with the lowest bidder, because it saves them money in the short term. This, however, bites them in the ass because the lowest bidder often isn't the best product, so they end up having to start from scratch with a new contract on the same project. The process repeats. Millions of dollars are wasted. Instead, spend the money wisely in the first place. It costs more in the short term, but saves a ton in the long run. Responsible spending. Like I said, if this is what Obama means by not funding unproven products, then I am with him 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: It's nice to know you actually read my post. Oh wait, you didn't You completely missed the part where I said I am completely fine with cutting defense spending responsibly, in a way that doesn't hurt us. What do you think I thought we should do with those savings? Throw a party?

Seriously, do you really think I don't believe we need to fund schools, research, etc.? I'm not an idiot, sir. At the same time, I realize that all that money will be wasted on corpses if we are attacked and can't properly defend ourselves. Defense spending is just as important as funding the other things you mentioned. Dominant world powers, as the US has been since WWII are always targets. There is always someone waiting to become the next dominant world power.

The problem is not with funding defense, the problem is the wasteful spending. For example, the government often goes with the lowest bidder, because it saves them money in the short term. This, however, bites them in the ass because the lowest bidder often isn't the best product, so they end up having to start from scratch with a new contract on the same project. The process repeats. Millions of dollars are wasted. Instead, spend the money wisely in the first place. It costs more in the short term, but saves a ton in the long run. Responsible spending. Like I said, if this is what Obama means by not funding unproven products, then I am with him 100%.

You dont want to stop production of nuclear weapons and missiles and new weapons; but you want to cut spendings by cutting wasteful contracts, but you prefer to spend more in the short term by not automatically taking the lowest bidder. Yes, yes, makes so much more sense now [/sarcasm]

Defense, defense, defense... You talk like someone who believes the USA are some sort of last bastion of hope for humanity. Wake up. You're the target of who anyway? Who's threatening to invade? Martians?

Anyway, f*ck it. Maybe if you'd change your foreign policies from "bully" to "partner" you wouldn't be scared shitless of karma payback and wouldnt have to arm yourselves to the teeth to keep some peace of mind and sense of security. But, hey, it's your tax dollars getting wasted on useless military junk and it's your country that'd go to Hell with your line of thinking, not mine. I just get tadly annoyed when the neighbors keep f*cking up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont want to stop production of nuclear weapons and missiles and new weapons; but you want to cut spendings by cutting wasteful contracts, but you prefer to spend more in the short term by not automatically taking the lowest bidder. Yes, yes, makes so much more sense now [/sarcasm]

Man, you're as bad as PTG. You just disagree with me so much that you can't even see when I make sense. Think about it. Company A and B make a bid on a contract. Crappy company A bids one million and good company B bids two million. They choose A because they are cheaper, but they screw up. They then have to go to back to B, who at this point will probably charge more than the original 2 million. Now they've spent 3.5 million, when they could have just gone with the good company in the first place. They've instead wasted 1+ million dollars because they went with cheapness over quality.

Seriously, is that so hard to understand?

B-b-but we live in a "DANGEROUS WORLD"!!

~ I can't get over how many times the Republicans used that line. Sayonara fear-mongers.

There is a significant difference between wanting to be prepared and being scared. Boy scouts are always prepared, but they're not scared. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...