http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UFRQV01&show_article=1

What do you think, Herb? Is a person anti-women's issues if he supports a man over a woman as President?

Yea, but considering it's NOW AND a Kennedy, neither one is worth a nickel.

Neither one’s opinion counts for anything in my book!

So this is a non-story? I tend to agree, but probably for different reasons.

"What do you think, Herb?"

NOW should be far more upset about the loss of Ms. Mary Jo Kopechne's life, than who Mr. Kennedy supports.

Yet it's par for the radical feminist course. They don't care much about unborn women, either.

Herb

OMG, can't you answer any question directly? Here it is again:

Is a person "anti-women's issues" if he supports a man over a woman as President?

If you can't answer this question, then why the heck did you post the link? Are you such a knee-jerk Kennedy-hater that you'll simply post up anything critical-sounding of him?

(Your "response" above sounds like you think NOW's criticism of him is unfounded...)

"Is a candidate "anti-women's issues" if he supports a man over a woman as President?"

Of course not.

I'm not talking about you, but the question itself is kind of ridiculous.

Herb

I used the word "candidate" accidentally in the original question, then went back to correct it. Sorry if that confused things.

NOW is angry because they have been courting Kennedy's support of their agenda, and clearly thought they had it. Are NOW's complaints about Kennedy valid? If (note the "if") one supports a feminist agenda, is a female candidate automatically the best choice to help achieve that agenda? Is Hillary the best candidate to further women's issues? In the same vein, is Obama the best candidate to further black/minority issues?

•If you disagree with NOW, their complaint and this story have no merit.

•If you agree with NOW, then is being anti-Hillary mean you are also anti-women's issues?

There are big issues in all this, not easily seen on the surface.

"If you disagree with NOW, their complaint and this story have no merit."

Wrong.

That's because NOW is highly selective in what they label 'women's issues.'

Abortion harms just as many unborn girls as boys. In fact, countries like China and India routinely abort far more girls. Yet, these so-called 'women's issues' proponents continually bang the drum for 'abortion rights.' They also decry women of substance like Condoleeza Rice, simply because they are conservative.

Herb

What did you think about LAME DUCK DUHbya last night at his worthless State of the Union speech?
That jerk off just keep ramming bullcrap down all our throats!!!!!
Nixon was a Fin bigot too!

Whoa, Herb!

I thought we were on the same wavelength. Here's the question I intended, perhaps more clear:

•If you disagree with NOW's condemnation of Kennedy because you feel that a candidate's gender is irrelevant to their stand on women's issues, their complaint and this story have no merit.

•If you agree with NOW and believe that women candidates are best and uniquely suited to address and advance women's issues, then is being anti-Hillary mean you are also anti-women's issues?


("women's issues" for the purposes of these questions are defined as NOW's agenda. Save your disagreement with NOW for another thread.)

(p.s.- everything is about abortion with you, isn't it?)

"Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting more right wing court appointments." -- Herb.

Carry on, I'm interested in that answer!

"...everything is about abortion with you, isn't it?"

Were you Frederick Douglass or Abraham Lincoln, or John Brown, 'everything' would be about slavery. And that would be a good thing.

Both are horrific, unhuman and evil. Abortion is also a glaring deficiency of liberals. And as long as pro-abortionists have no qualms in fighting for the so-called 'right' to stop the tiny beating heart of infants, I shall not be silent.

Herb

"If you disagree with NOW's condemnation of Kennedy because you feel that a candidate's gender is irrelevant to their stand on women's issues, their complaint and this story have no merit."

If I understand the question posed...I disagree with NOW on many fronts. Is being a woman IRRELEVANT? A lot of times, probably. But I'm not sure if such a blanket statement is appropriate, since it might truly depend on a specific situation or person.

As a marginal analogy, I have no problem seeing a female doctor. A male doctor may, or may not, have an advantage in certain instances...but it wouldn't keep me from seeing a very good doctor of either gender.

I'm not sure if I answered your question.

Herb

Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting more right wing court appointments." --

Herb.

Nothing else matters but getting DUHbya and Co. with their OLD mind sets OUT of D.C.!!!!! When your approval ratings are below that of Nixon (when he turned tail and ran out of office) YOU KNOW that whomever will take over will do something a tad bit different.
At least 60%+ of AMERICA hopes so.

Herbbocrite:

Are you forgetting that Laura Bush killed an innocent person as well? She also didn't face any charges for her vehicular "accident".

STFU

Question: What would happen if Laura and Ted rode in the same car?

Answer: An intelligent conversation.

Let's pretend for a moment that Chappaquiddick did not happen and there was one less bump in the long hard road for Teddy.

Let's also pretend for a moment that a pair of Chevrolets did not collide and there was a less traumatic puberty for Laura.

Would Teddy have been President? Would Laura have married a real man? What if Mary Jo or Michael grew up to change the world, but opened us all up to a mortal enemy?

Would it have been a situation like City on the Edge of Forever?

In Michael's case, he did help future generations of motorists by contributing a valuable statistic to the mounting evidence against the Corvair.

Sometimes, sadly, Edith Keeler must die.

Which reminds me of the tragic accident Mr. Spock had as a child, when his head got caught in a mechanical rice picker.

I also heard that Edith Keeler did NOT die, she changed her name to Alexis and lived in Denver.

Um, wouldn't that be DALLAS?

Did she marry Garrison?

Yes, but it's a secret!

Laura Bush called the cops immediatly, kennedy waited hours to call the cops.

Cheney only winged J.R.

Oh crap, I spoiled next season.

NOW lost its integrity and relevancy when it looked the other way regarding Bill Clinton's indiscretions. Who cares what they think? They're 70's has-beens.

To some people they've ALWAYS been irrelevant because they'll NEVER accept women as a sex equal to men. Is this you? I think so.

Laura Bush called the cops immediatly, kennedy waited hours to call the cops.

But the person STILL DIED!!!!!!

Trixter...excusing the democrat...once again.
Some republican.
Herb

If NIXON wouldn't have been such a pussy I'd excuse him too!

Let's see...defending liberal democrats...whilst attacking conservatives....That's Trixter, the so-called republican.

Consider yourself outed as the liberal democrat you really are.

Herb

BULLSHIT!
I've stood BEHIND McCain for about 14 months now if YOU WOULD BOTHER TO READ! Your the most DEFT person I know!!!! READ! READ! READ!!!!!!!
No wonder your a DUHbya fan....

I believe you meant daft, not deft.

I think all of the feminists that are complaining, should stick to their guns, and if Obama is nominated, refuse to participate in the general election.

They should stick up for their ideas.

Amazing...the blatant call for a less representative sampling of the people's will. Whenever I have a heart-to-heart with a staunch Republican they all openly admit the same thing: less people voting means a better chance for Republicans winning.

Nwokie, what exactly is your definition of 'democracy?'

Doesn't matter, we're not a democracy, we're a republic, read the constitution.

Touche', Nwokie.

Herb

God control freaks annoy me.

Carry on guys.

Control freaks?

What do you call Mrs. Clinton's plan to take over the entire health care sector of our economy? THAT'S a control freak.

Herb

If we aren't a democracy (as well as being a republic) then what the heck is this election all about?

Fundraising.

Power.

Showbiz.

Did I miss anything?

Sadly, you've nailed it.

Power to the people man!

LS, MK: True that.

But Herb and Nwokie are giddy with excitement today for some reason, and when they get on a roll they say stupid things and I don't think they even realize it. "We're not a democracy"??? C'mon, that's so lame I almost didn't respond. But silence is affirmation for these guys, so...

Anyway, I think I'll go try reading the Constitution now, but ditzy ol' me doesn't like get it at all. I mean, there are so many big words. And absolutely no plot. The "corruption of blood" part is cool, though.

Yeah Herb, control freaks.

The truth is, every last American citizen should be voting as often as they can.

Anything less is not honoring the process. And when we allow that process to degrade, we suffer, period.

Encouraging fewer votes, as in the "fewer people that vote, the better things are for Republicans", is an attempt at control, at the expense of the process.

Now, is changing our health care system control?

Absolutely.

Is what we have now control?

Absolutely!

Right now, large insurance and pharma companies control a LOT of how our health care works. The results are not really all that good.

So, changing that is something that is well supported by a lot of voters. It's likely the number two issue, maybe number three.

On the GOP side, we've got people that really want to just tweak the corporate structure, maybe help a few people out, and by and large leave it alone.

On the Democratic side, serious reform is on the table.

And that's control.

Now, hoping we don't have as many voters engaged as we can get, is circumventing the process! That's being a control freak, because it's more about what YOU want, rather than what the United States of America wants.

And that's exactly why I said, "Control freaks annoy me."

Now, we may find that reform of the system does not serve us as well as we would have liked. So, we vote again and we make changes again. That's how the system is supposed to work.

As Americans, we discuss which is better, which isn't, we then vote, those votes are aggregated, which is the Republic part of things, then decisions are made and legislation passed.

Really, if you truely think we are better off with things as they are, the burden is not to keep "stupid" and "uniformed" (read disagree) voters outta the polls, but to engage in advocacy for your supposition we are better off!

Additionally, no matter who is elected, that advocacy continues. We can run in primaries, we can make phone calls, band together to make statements, publish stuff, etc...

Look at the immunity issue right now. A whole lot of people (myself included) are spending time each fricking day, hammering on our elected REPRESENTATIVE leadership, in an attempt to convince them not granting that immunity is the right thing to do.

It's working.

Should we see a Democratic President, that same process is there for anybody seriously concerned about the health care issues to do exactly the same things.

Your core problem, and believe me you are not alone, is that you see these elected people as authoritarian leaders, when the reality is just not so! They work for us, are accountable to us, and if we make a lot of noise, will absolutely serve us.

Manipulating the process, in an attempt to seat the "right" people, whoever they may be, is only doing all of us harm, as it's the process that keeps things checked and balanced.

You want control for your own reasons, and really don't care if others have that same control. It's selfish, and that's really another way to express the annoyance.

Peace!

(and votes --lots of them)

Ed: Forget the big words. Just stick with:

"We the People" grok that, and all it just has to mean, and you've got most of the rest embodied in your idea of how things work.

Stir in equality, and there isn't much else, at the core, to be concerned about.

So there, four --count 'em four words, to a better nation! "We the equal people"

But try saying that out loud four times fast.

(waiting for "Red Menace" Herb to jump all over the word "equal")

You know it's coming too

Really, a whole lot of the Constitution can be derived from the implications those 4 words have. Damn cool really. The founders really tried hard to get it as right as they could.

Who knew tech and money would prove so troublesome?

Lets see, the founding fathers thought women shouldn't vote, approved of slavery, thought only the states should elect the president.

And you think thats cool?

All I said was "corruption of blood" is cool - at least, it sounds cool. Like a slasher movie or something.

1) True, originally women weren't expressly guaranteed the right to vote (they were never prohibited from voting at the federal level). We eventually fixed it, and that's cool.

2) Some framers approved of slavery, some hated it. The Constitution struck a compromise on slavery in order to preserve the Union, but also agreed to end the slave trade in 20 years. Probably the best they could do at the time, in that situation.

3) The states still elect the president, dude. A.2 Sec.1 Clause 3&4, and Amend 12. But why am I telling you this? You got this Constitution down cold.

"An individual can die no more times than they have CONSTITUTION points; beyond this they are dead permanently."

Oh, wait a minute, all this "Corruption of Blood" has me confused.

Were you looking for this?

All kidding aside, Doug nailed some very important points. Of the people, by the people and for the people is as American as apple pie!

Play the Constitution Game!


Bonus Kewl Constitution Quote:

"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag" -Congressman Craig Washington

Hooray for Teachers!!!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled ignorance. :0)

I just got home from my regularly scheduled ignorance, aka 10th graders.

Of course, I kid. They are wide-eyed cherubs, the shining light of my life, and the hope of America's future.

(ow, I think I just pulled a muscle)

I'll second Littlesongs.

You are appreciated Edselehr.

Liked the game. "We the people" comes up a lot. Good on them.

10th graders are a great lot, IMHO. Still kid like, yet capable of a lot of reason. My kids are all passing through that age, and the conversations, issues and questions are interesting and fun.

Nwokie, I thought for a while. Thought again. Realized I'm in a mood, so fuck it:

(gets out clue stick)

I don't think the prevailing ideas of the time were cool. That's all the stuff you mentioned. Not cool at all.

Want to know what I think is cool --damn cool?

(hoping so --maybe futile though...)

I think the character of our founders is cool. At any given time, our race suffers ignorance in some form or other. That's just who we are.

Frankly, I think it goes back to our development. If we were created, we squabbled too much and didn't keep track of our history. If we evolved, said evolution didn't happen quick enough for us to record that reality in a way that makes sense to us today.

Either way, we are left without absolute understanding of some core things, meaning we've had to go back and derive them the hard way.

That's happened one conversation at a time, and it's gonna keep happening that way until we grow enough to get over some basic stuff.

Given our progress, that's gonna take a good long while.

Our founders understood these things. They also understood and derived the justification for the principle of self-governance and the core of that happens to be our equality as people.

Back then, the meaning of "people" was not solid. Blacks were fractions of people. That didn't stop the reasoning however, and that's cool.

From these core discussions, and you really need to read some of our federalist papers, Tom Paine, etc... the idea of checks and balances came about --along with the realization that simple democracy didn't serve us very well.

Throughout our history, great ideas, be they political, scientific, or theological, have started with one --or a few people, building on the ideas of the others, arriving at something new --potentially vital.

Simple majority rule means that is often lost. Said loss is our collective loss as a race and that's not good for us to improve and better our collective lot.

That's why we are a Republic, not a full on populist democracy. Minority views are important for the debate. If the debate is robust, then it's results will be robust, and just understanding that, why it matters, and how it needs to perform as a dynamic is damn cool.

That's our first amendment!

Those are all mostly rational things. These men, students of history and politics, learned from all those things and created our system of government, and with it, brought NEW IDEAS to government.

This does not happen often, and that's damn cool too.

Further, they had the character to debate among themselves, fiercely I might add, with the understanding that they were doing something powerful and that they were doing it for all people.

That takes character --a kind of character that I find difficult to imagine today. Frankly, I think we are spoiled babies by comparison.

Most any member of our government would shrivel up and die, compared to the strength our founders had within. --and the conviction!

This conviction was in the process, not their particular ideologies and that's what is so damn powerful.

AND NOBODY GROKS THAT TODAY.

I don't know why. I do know I didn't until long after learning about it all in school. Maybe it takes some life experience to see it for what it is. Maybe it's just something not all of us can see, for whatever reason.

Thankfully, our founders were a group that could actually see it, have the strength to work with it, and the conviction and character and respect of their peers to follow through and establish it.

I'm not sure the world will see that again. It was a special time, humans had not yet connected as a race, and that meant oppetunity to exploit that and do "new" things, powerful things.

AND THEY WENT AHEAD AND DID THESE THINGS.

That's cool too.

They didn't say we are smarter than everybody else, or any other ego centric thing. That document starts with "We the People". Only a statesmen could write that. In fact, that preamble is quite possibly the most beautiful and structured sentence there is!

AND NOBODY APPRECIATES THAT EITHER.

And again, I don't know why.

They worked as peers --EQUAL, knowing the sum of their deliberations would be greater than any one of them was. Their creation mirrored that, knowing it would play out to be greater than any of them was.

Was that perfect. Hell no. Like I said, at any given time, we are limited by our understanding. The word "people", or "person" was a problem then. In fixing that, by the way, we made corporations people, and that's impacted our democracy today.

So, we learn the hard way, just as they did. So long as we honor that process, the end result will be improvement and world leadership, until either the next really NEW political ideas about governance arrive, or disaster, or some other big thing does what it does.

That process saw slavery fall, equality is arriving (still have trouble with that it seems), and lots of other stuff has happened that took other, inferior governments, a very long time, if ever to accomplish.

In fact, our time spent thinking, deliberating about simple, basic things, like "we the people", "Equality", "checks and balances", "free and uninhibited political discourse", has had a HUGE impact on those other governments, many of whom strive to do what our founders did.

It's still gonna happen, so long as we teach each new generation how it works, what it means and what it has already done.

That's the coolest frankly.

Our core ideas are the new political reasoning. It's the best there is. Our race has none better, and we are here fucking it up, spoiled, trying to serve ourselves, instead of serving one another.

Many of us today ignore that process, out of weakness, lack of character, and simple ignorance of the harm we do. Some times it's greed too. Does not matter really. Either enough of us have the character to step up and honor how we got here, or we don't, and we all live with the results.

That's not cool, given the state of affairs right now.

(puts clue stick away)

"They are wide-eyed cherubs, the shining light of my life, and the hope of America's future."

And I bet not even a backwards thinking Troll or Okie in the bunch, thanks to a sharp teacher.

No, they didn.t agree to end slavery in 20 years, they said it couldn't even be considered for 20 years.

And corruption of the blood means you can punish the family, but only until the traitor dies.

The backwards thinking ones are ignorant democrats and the ones supporting them. These include Robert KKK Byrd, George Wallace and Mr. Gore's dad...all opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

Spin indeed.

Herb

Are they opposed to it now?

The verdict it out, and the GOP is no friend of the black community. All one has to do is look at the votes. If the GOP did a better job caring, they'd get more black votes.

"No, they didn.t agree to end slavery in 20 years, they said it couldn't even be considered for 20 years."

Correct, but I said slave trade, which is the buying and selling of slaves (ownership was still legal). A lot like prohibition, when buying, selling or transporting alcohol was illegal, but ownership wasn't.

"And corruption of the blood means you can punish the family, but only until the traitor dies."

Basically correct. Still sounds creepy.

So what Herb is saying is that the GOP party is racist free? And that NOT ONE GOP member was apposed to ending slavery?
WOW!
Find that hard to believe. Just like EVERY Dem is for Social medicine... WRONG!
Herb..
Your FACTS if they are that... always lean to YOUR favor. Then when we find out the FACTS are WRONG you run and hide.
Interesting.....

You could still sell and buy slaves, just not new slaves from outside the country.

A plantation owner in Georgia could sell slaves to another plantation owner in Georgia or other slave holding state.

10-4, Nwokie

Good Buddy.

I wonder if Trixter talks in person like he types in here.

I think I could handle about 3 1\2 minutes of it before I would commit suicide.

Littlesongs:

Convoy trivia. Chip Davis wrote the song. Chip is best known as the musical force behind Mannheim Steamroller.

Trix, I need you for about 4 minutes. Can you meet Mc74 at Vista Bridge?

Only if I can give you a push first. Bring your kids.

Please give this a read...

Ok, I read it. Now what? Is there a follow up exam?

I wonder if Trixter talks in person like he types in here.

I think I could handle about 3 1\2 minutes of it before I would commit suicide.

And your a ray of sunshine... YEAH RIGHT! Those chemicals you work with have gone to your brain...
I'll bring the gun when your ready?? Give the place and time Mc, and me and my Glock are there!!!!! I'll talk for exactly 3 1/2 minutes and then YOU commit YOUR suicide.... I'll post the picture here and we (posters) will have the pic forever here on this site.
So...
Time and place.....
WAITING!!!!!
You can even use my bullets.... Well, maybe you borrow them....

C'mon, Trixter.

This is getting nasty.

Can we keep it on politics?

Herb

Mc opened the door....
OTHER things is also this side of the board...

Wow.

How about we all relax and enjoy some music?

To return the thread to topic, Senator Ted Kennedy worked against all odds increase the minimum wage. A year ago last Friday, his bill passed the Senate by a 94-3 margin. I find it hard to believe that someone who hated women would put all that effort into such a measure. After all, women are the majority of workers who recieved a mandated raise because of his bill.

And how many people lost their job, due to the minimum wage increase?

How many?

I doubt that is significant. If it is, then it's short term. Always is.

Here's the brutal truth:

You gotta pay people enough to make the work worth working, otherwise we really don't need the jobs.

Other jobs will be created and existing ones can be subsidized, if need be, but we can't have people working at a loss. It makes zero sense.

We are supposed to be a nation where innovation rules the day. Well, if the means and methods we have right now end up over exploiting people to get things done, then we need to fix that --not continue to rationalize away the problems.

Missing, the other thing that needs to happen is to make it economically feasable to work than be on welfare.

If you can make more being on welfare than say, flipping burgers, where's the incentive to get off welfare and get a job?

Although by raising the minimum wage, the added cost just gets passed on to the consumer (of which those that got a boost in wages are too) so, yeah, they are making more money, but now everything they buy is going to cost more too.

Their standard of living doesn't go up.

It's a vicious circle.

Well, if you consider only our nation, then it's an ugly circle indeed. But, the picture is bigger than that.

What we have going on today is large companies leveraging different government rules and bringing the result to us here. At first, it's a good thing! We get cheaper stuff and our buying power remains high. That's a win-win right?

Wrong.

For each good or service that leverages labor outside the country, our existing economic balance is impacted. Given the difference is high enough, we lose that capability and with it go the jobs that used to provide that buying power.

If you go back a bunch of years (maybe 50 or so), most of our GDP was manufacturing. We ate our own dog food for the most part. And that meant our economy was largely self-sustaining, but for those things we needed outside help on.

Today, it's almost all financial!

We don't make stuff, and that means we don't have a self-sustaining economy. Not only do we need that cheap stuff, but we are now bound by it and not innovating to compensate for it.

The net result is it being increasingly hard to provide good paying jobs.

At the end of the day, without those good paying jobs and that innovation, we end up a nation of buyers. That's what this whole housing bubble has been about.

We don't produce enough to balance our burden in the world, and have had to leverage our stored value to compensate and that's coming to an end right now.

If you look at small business, it's a lot of service stuff. We can't compete globally washing each others laundry. We can only do that by innovating and producing real things.

Intellecutal property is an export of ours and it's a good thing in that it does bring revenue. But it's not such a good thing when it's rapidly becoming our major product.

Talk is cheap. Always has been always will be.

Nations generate wealth from labor. If that labor brings goods to market that have value, then that nation can trade to balance things out and everybody gains.

You are spot on about flipping burgers and welfare.

The problem is that we simply have outsourced the jobs needed to actually put people to work, leaving us with an assload of baristas and burger flippers!

Say we attach training to welfare and that gets attached to work, or maybe the welfare is tied to some work as a form of subsidy to help with those jobs where minimum wage is a problem.

That kind of plugs the hole somewhat, but without real jobs happening here, the flood continues out of the nation, leaving more and more of us wanting to work and add value, pay our way, build wealth, etc... but unable to do so because that work is offshore where other governments literally are profiting from our growing bad situation.

All of that leaves us with people, realizing this, and staying on the dole because their realistic growth opportunities are all overseas.

I don't like it. Nobody does, but the businesses wanting to trade national security and viability for profit. Until they are basically forced to reconsider that, we grow more screwed in this way each and every year.

There is one other side effect of this that's not getting a lot of national play and that's recovery time. We go through these boom and bust times because our economy is not as stable as it once was. That's all the outsourcing and job killing going on.

When a given bubble pops, there are people outta work and there are people displaced and people who were displaced from the bubble before.

Each time we go through this cycle, we eliminate more growth opportunities and the number of people, who remain displaced, carries over to the next cycle.

Net result: Longer recovery times and less overall recovery each time.

Skybill, one of the biggest get off of welfare programs we could make is a New Deal kind of thing where we pour tax dollars into projects that build up the value of the nation, just like we saw with the Interstate project.

Business won't like it, in the short term, because it will compete with them and change the pricing structure of things. However, in the longer term, they will love it because it will be there to exploit for profit, just like it was there before.

We spend a ton of money on stuff. Why not infrastructure? It pays well, helps big time with the economy and helps us compete globally.

Our networks are sub-par, our roads are old, our bridges are flat out scary. Our petroleum energy infrastructure needs upgrades and add ons to leverage other energy forms.

Heck, we then could really start producing those energy forms because that infrastructure would make markets.

We can't borrow our way out of this problem. We can only work our way out of it, and that means investing in our own selves, just as any of us has to in real life, from time to time when things change.

Skybill, one of the biggest get off of welfare programs we could make is a New Deal kind of thing where we pour tax dollars into projects that build up the value of the nation, just like we saw with the Interstate project.

Agreed 100%

A good example would be New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

In February's welfare check, for those that are able to work, include a bus ticket and a note that they can pick up next month's check after working for the month in New Orleans. Perhaps even give them a boost in $'s for extra effort, a kind of bonus.

I think the biggest resistance to this kind of program would come from private contractors.

I think the biggest resistance to this kind of program would come from private contractors.

True...
They'd want to pay them .50 an hour with NO breaks and 10 minute lunches.

Totally. Of course, maybe they could get into the deal. It can't be that hard to set things up in such a way as to provide for them.

Maybe not as sweet of a deal as they are used to, but when times are lean (and they are), some of something to keep the lights on, people paid, gear maintained, is way better than a lot of nothing.

It would be so worth it. IMHO, this is probably one of those really good reasons to try hard to get some of the money out of the politics. If anything, it would allow a lot of people to take some ownership of their situation. That's a really great thing to have happen. We need more of it --a lot more.

I love the idea of things like that. It's a great use of tax dollars. If we are gonna pay taxes, and it appears we are, then we might as well get some seriously good stuff out of it.

Betcha there would be lots of people willing to jump in and do that kind of stuff. It beats sitting in the shared apartment, with the other 3 outta work people, wondering, "where do we go from here?"

Trixter, I don't think that would be the issue. I think them not getting the business would be their bigger gripe.

I am glad to see us batting around solutions here. This is a good direction. Why not make our country stronger, safer and solvent? You guys have some great concepts!

Companies hate the idea that wars and disasters are not big moneymakers. During World War II, Attorney General Francis Biddle called the military to remove CEO Sewell Avery from Montgomery Ward. He was refusing to cooperate with the War Labor Board on a new contract for his workers. These very same workers were busting their asses to help us win against tyranny while he pinched pennies. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Take huge contractors out of the picture entirely, restore the labor laws and open it up to local firms in the region. Accountability is the key to this being a success. If the folks responsible for a project live nearby, they almost always do a better job. Before long, we have ourselves a growing economy that pays local taxes and keeps the momentum going.

Keeping the dollars in the nation should be a primary effort.

Man, just look at all the foreign ownership of our business. All those dollars leave. Not good.

Accountability is lacking across the board. Damn good point. Look at the Portland Water billing mess. Been through it a coupla times, and it's not so bad now.

Outside firm did it, owns it, makes us pay to maintain it, and pay to fix it poorly done in the first place. Why didn't we have Oregon people build that system?

(why was it done with closed code we don't own too?)

The little contractors might actually do better at this than the bigger ones would. A big part of the business model for larger firms is to build in escape clauses everywhere! This leaves a fixed engagement that puts all the risk onto us, and those we trust to spec the project properly.

Perhaps it means that municipalities, county and state governments will have to grow hair on their pouch. I think they ought to say no thank you to the big firms and stop taking the lowest bid when it really isn't the most cost effective.

I believe that all contracts should be evaluated after the job to see if it was even close to budget, safely built, and if the product or service was exactly as promised. If it wasn't, no more contracts. Period. The only ways to ensure a competitive market is to force contractors to draw up realistic estimates and to keep sealed bids truly secret.

Speaking of fixing bids and pilfering public dollars for inside deals, my sources say that the lid is gonna be blown off of the top brass at what I will refer to as "the large local mass transit operator." I am delighted. Chopping off all the tentacles of local corruption may take decades, but this is another good step in the right direction.

"I think they ought to say no thank you to the big firms and stop taking the lowest bid when it really isn't the most cost effective."

Boy, did Oregon get a black eye with that bid on Hwy 20. Because of that, the best way to Newport is still through Grande Ronde (ugh, drunk gamblers) and Lincoln City (double ugh, tourists, slow driving locals and overzealous cops) and will remain so for a few more years. We didn't get our money's worth on that turkey for sure.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4184/is_20070824/ai_n19489388

/off topic.