PDA

View Full Version : Hey Roger Perry, expain this one ???



Lucky Seven
01-25-2010, 11:27 AM
Hey Roger,

I dont think you, the left wing media or any other nut jobs can ever say anything about Chaney/Halliburton no-bid contracts ever again.

Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."

road kill
01-25-2010, 01:17 PM
Hey Roger,

I dont think you, the left wing media or any other nut jobs can ever say anything about Chaney/Halliburton no-bid contracts ever again.

Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."



Yeah--But......!!:D



rk

kjrice
01-25-2010, 01:37 PM
That was Bush's fault!

YardleyLabs
01-25-2010, 01:52 PM
Personally, I'm outraged and ready to become a Republican. At least the GOP understands that the minimum price for aloyalty contract is at least $100 million.:D I'm assuming he as shortchanged since he supported Edwards during the primary.

Pals
01-25-2010, 02:14 PM
Personally, I'm outraged and ready to become a Republican.


About time! I'll send you the honorary nose plugs and shovel-keep an eye on the mail!:D

Bayou Magic
01-25-2010, 02:46 PM
Did you really expect anything different? It's just another lie and spoonful of excrement from our career politicians.

fp

Roger Perry
01-25-2010, 04:34 PM
Hey Roger,

I dont think you, the left wing media or any other nut jobs can ever say anything about Chaney/Halliburton no-bid contracts ever again.

Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work."

Fox entertainment as a source?

huntinman
01-25-2010, 04:47 PM
Fox entertainment as a source?

As opposed to DNC TV (ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBS and Headline news)??

YardleyLabs
01-25-2010, 05:17 PM
I don't question the accuracy of the story. Vincent Checci and Adam Checci (principals in the firm) each gave a little over $4000 to Obama's Presidential campaign and Vincent Checci also gave $1600 to the Edwards primary campaign. Neither appears to have been very politically active otherwise. Their financial donations are consistently to liberal groups (e.g. moveon.org). I didn't find anything suggesting that the Checci's were "aggregators" -- the approach optimized under Bush for circumventing donation limits by having people put together "packages" of donors (oddly enough, often employees of the aggregator) from whom total donations could be $100k, $500 k, or more.

$4000 would be comparable to what I routinely spent attending things like the Governor's Ball in NJ or the Mayor's birthday party in NYC. Of course, that was money "voluntarily" contributed by partners of the firm to advance the firm's interests. About 85% of our donations went to Republicans and the balance to Democrats. Usually the donations were made in response to specific requests from other Corporate clients who made it clear that they preferred to do business with professional service firms that supported the candidates they believed were important to their business. If that sounds crude, it is a lot less crude than the manner in which requests were actually made.

On an annual basis, each Partner was told how much they were expected to contribute to the firm's PAC and how much they were expected to contribute for political causes over and above the PAC contributions. The suggestions were provided in writing and actuals were verified before decisions were made on annual compensation levels for the following year. We were ecstatic when an entity - NYC, for example - passed bills prohibiting donors from receiving contracts.

However, most places, like New Jersey, were explicitly "pay to play." As I was told at one point, every firm was expected to give to both parties. Campaigns were expensive and paid for primarily by corporations. If companies were not interested in helping to finance this necessary public cost, then they were not committed to the public sector market and did not deserve to be awarded any contracts. Washington, unhappily, has always been a "pay to play" kind of place. However, the numbers are much bigger and the mechanisms used to channel money more complex.

Bayou Magic
01-25-2010, 07:48 PM
I don't question the accuracy of the story. Vincent Checci and Adam Checci (principals in the firm) each gave a little over $4000 to Obama's Presidential campaign and Vincent Checci also gave $1600 to the Edwards primary campaign. Neither appears to have been very politically active otherwise. Their financial donations are consistently to liberal groups (e.g. moveon.org). I didn't find anything suggesting that the Checci's were "aggregators" -- the approach optimized under Bush for circumventing donation limits by having people put together "packages" of donors (oddly enough, often employees of the aggregator) from whom total donations could be $100k, $500 k, or more.

$4000 would be comparable to what I routinely spent attending things like the Governor's Ball in NJ or the Mayor's birthday party in NYC. Of course, that was money "voluntarily" contributed by partners of the firm to advance the firm's interests. About 85% of our donations went to Republicans and the balance to Democrats. Usually the donations were made in response to specific requests from other Corporate clients who made it clear that they preferred to do business with professional service firms that supported the candidates they believed were important to their business. If that sounds crude, it is a lot less crude than the manner in which requests were actually made.

On an annual basis, each Partner was told how much they were expected to contribute to the firm's PAC and how much they were expected to contribute for political causes over and above the PAC contributions. The suggestions were provided in writing and actuals were verified before decisions were made on annual compensation levels for the following year. We were ecstatic when an entity - NYC, for example - passed bills prohibiting donors from receiving contracts.

However, most places, like New Jersey, were explicitly "pay to play." As I was told at one point, every firm was expected to give to both parties. Campaigns were expensive and paid for primarily by corporations. If companies were not interested in helping to finance this necessary public cost, then they were not committed to the public sector market and did not deserve to be awarded any contracts. Washington, unhappily, has always been a "pay to play" kind of place. However, the numbers are much bigger and the mechanisms used to channel money more complex.

Now we all know how the political system works. Great.

The response to the Fox story from the Checci firm is they didn't know the contract was a non-competitive (sole source) procurement. The arrogance of that statement is beyond absurd.

I have written competitive and sole source government procurement solicitations for over 25 years during my employment with the Army, Air Force, and now the EPA. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) provide a strict process by which government projects are contracted and purchases are made. Every sole source solicitation is clearly identified as such from the start of the process. Contractors and venders are even provided a reasonable time, typically 30 days, to contest a solicitation identified as a sole source procurement. When a contractor or vender is contacted they are provided a detailed statement of work and a price is negotiated with the procuring government agency. Depending on the scope of the project the negotiations can be quite laborious and lengthy. There is no way on Godís earth a company can sign onto a 25 million dollar project and not know it was a sole source procurement! Impossible!

This is the kind of BS that people are tired of enduring. Throw them out. Throw them all out. Give us term limits and kill the future for the career politicians.

fp

Lucky Seven
01-25-2010, 07:52 PM
Fox entertainment as a source?

Thats all you got ????? hahahahahahahaha

YardleyLabs
01-25-2010, 08:04 PM
...
There is no way on Godís earth a company can sign onto a 25 million dollar project and not know it was a sole source procurement! Impossible!

...

fp
It's been a lot of years (since Reagan was President) since I was last involved with government contracting. However, we actually received multiple sole source contracts that started out as competitive bids. Typically happened when we offered an alternative proposal that convinced the purchasing agent to change the spec.

I once won a multi-million dollar sole source contract when I refused to bid the competitive job because another firm spent three months writing the spec and only ten days was provided for submitting proposals because of the constraints of a legislative deadline for implementation. The firm that wrote the spec was bidding for implementation and I wrote a letter suggesting that they simply be given the contract since no one else could possibly provide a fixed cost bid in the time allotted. I also pointed out that we had an ideally structured team for the work involved and would be happy to do something on T&M or if there were more time to prepare proposals. We were asked to fax a proposal suggesting that. We did and were awarded the contract sole source. No politics were involved other than the fact that the purchasing officer recognized the truth of my claim and did not want to be owned by the firm that wrote the spec. We actually completed the job is less time and at half the cost proposed by the leading firm.

I know nothing about this case or the politics involved, and am not defending the award. However, the process is often not as straightforward as you imply.

Bayou Magic
01-25-2010, 08:40 PM
It's been a lot of years (since Reagan was President) since I was last involved with government contracting. However, we actually received multiple sole source contracts that started out as competitive bids. Typically happened when we offered an alternative proposal that convinced the purchasing agent to change the spec.

I once won a multi-million dollar sole source contract when I refused to bid the competitive job because another firm spent three months writing the spec and only ten days was provided for submitting proposals because of the constraints of a legislative deadline for implementation. The firm that wrote the spec was bidding for implementation and I wrote a letter suggesting that they simply be given the contract since no one else could possibly provide a fixed cost bid in the time allotted. I also pointed out that we had an ideally structured team for the work involved and would be happy to do something on T&M or if there were more time to prepare proposals. We were asked to fax a proposal suggesting that. We did and were awarded the contract sole source. No politics were involved other than the fact that the purchasing officer recognized the truth of my claim and did not want to be owned by the firm that wrote the spec. We actually completed the job is less time and at half the cost proposed by the leading firm.

I know nothing about this case or the politics involved, and am not defending the award. However, the process is often not as straightforward as you imply.

The Contracting Officer has the latitude to award a sole source as you described the process in the case you sited provided significant criteria are met. Timeliness of the project execution can be an overriding factor. However, are you going to tell me that the award (contracts are awarded, not given) was made without you knowing that it was awarded as a sole source contract? We will just have to disagree about the process not being straightforward. The FARs are very explicit in how procurements are made.

fp

YardleyLabs
01-25-2010, 08:51 PM
The Contracting Officer has the latitude to award a sole source as you described the process in the case you sited provided significant criteria are met. Timeliness of the project execution can be an overriding factor. However, are you going to tell me that the award (contracts are awarded, not given) was made without you knowing that it was awarded as a sole source contract? We will just have to disagree about the process not being straightforward. The FARs are very explicit in how procurements are made.

fp
Actually, in the case of the multi-million dollar contract, I was completely stunned when we were awarded the job. As far as I was concerned, all I did was provide some cover for the contracting officer to allow him to say that we had submitted a proposal despite my earlier refusal.

Pals
01-25-2010, 09:15 PM
Forget it- I'm keeping the nose plugs, the stink of this is rotten.

Gonna need a bigger shovel regards,

Bayou Magic
01-25-2010, 09:15 PM
Actually, in the case of the multi-million dollar contract, I was completely stunned when we were awarded the job. As far as I was concerned, all I did was provide some cover for the contracting officer to allow him to say that we had submitted a proposal despite my earlier refusal.

Working from the government side of the equation I've written many sole source justifications. The "cover" you provided was undoubtedly used by the CO or COR to provide the justification necessary to award as a sole source contract. Without adequate justification no sole source contract is awarded in accordance with the FARs. It is unthinkable that a contractor today, particularly the way vendors scrutinize sole source procurements, could unknowingly be awarded a non-competitive contract. Just won't happen. You can buy the Checci explanation if you wish. My many years of experience playing that game tell me something very different.

fp

Roger Perry
01-26-2010, 07:59 AM
Thats all you got ????? hahahahahahahaha


No Chad, that's not all I got. You must have forgotten to leave this part out.

Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "As the incumbent," Fredericks wrote in an e-mail Monday, "Checchi was rewarded a renewed contract to allow for work on the ground to continue."

huntinman
01-26-2010, 08:27 AM
No Chad, that's not all I got. You must have forgotten to leave this part out.

Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "As the incumbent," Fredericks wrote in an e-mail Monday, "Checchi was rewarded a renewed contract to allow for work on the ground to continue."

Fox News as a source Roger?

Starting to see the light, huh?

Lucky Seven
01-26-2010, 08:34 AM
No Chad, that's not all I got. You must have forgotten to leave this part out.

Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "As the incumbent," Fredericks wrote in an e-mail Monday, "Checchi was rewarded a renewed contract to allow for work on the ground to continue."

Bush's fault ....... shocker !!!!

So if Obama is pushing forward a Bush contract/policy, what ever happen to that "hope and change" ???? or transparency ?????

OR

When will you start bashing Obama for doing the same things that you accuse Bush of ?????

Double standard ????

Lucky Seven
01-26-2010, 08:36 AM
Fox News as a source Roger?

Starting to see the light, huh?

No, I am sure Roger get his news from the "little boy" Rachel Maddow ...... or better yet, Keith Over-bite on MSNBC. Cause those boys call it right down the middle. :rolleyes:

luvmylabs23139
01-26-2010, 08:51 AM
[quote=Roger Perry;557239awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "quote]


No bid in BUMFACES" administration since they BOUGHT HIM!!!!


BUMMA IS A LYING JERK< COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!

Roger Perry
01-26-2010, 09:30 AM
Fox News as a source Roger?

Starting to see the light, huh?
Nope, just read the whole article that Chad quoted but he left out an important part about a contract being renewed so it was not a no bid contract that was awarded as stated when he started this thread as Fox entertainment continues it's unfair and unbalanced reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/?test=latestnews

Roger Perry
01-26-2010, 09:31 AM
[quote=Roger Perry;557239awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "quote]


No bid in BUMFACES" administration since they BOUGHT HIM!!!!


BUMMA IS A LYING JERK< COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!

Why don't you tell us what you really think.

Bayou Magic
01-26-2010, 09:55 AM
No Chad, that's not all I got. You must have forgotten to leave this part out.

Joseph A. Fredericks, director of public information at USAID, told Fox News the Checchi deal was actually a renewal of an existing contract, awarded in 2004 by the Bush administration after a competitive bid process. "As the incumbent," Fredericks wrote in an e-mail Monday, "Checchi was rewarded a renewed contract to allow for work on the ground to continue."

And the tooth fairy came to see me last night. From the Fox report: "A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."

The legality of the arrangement as a "sole source," or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. "They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year," a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. 'There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work.'"

There are several red flags here. A key component to qualify for sole source is that there is not another available source to perform the work or provide the product. That doesn't appear to be the case.

The "existing contract" reason won't fly either. The fact that they "cancelled an open bid" tells you that the existing contract was expiring and another solicitation was being advertised because they needed to get another contract in place to continue the work. Just because Checci was already there is not grounds to sole source the next contract.

And regarding Fredericks statement, he had better try to justify the sole source action. Otherwise someone is in deep trouble if they did not follow the FARs. That is serious and certain to spark an IG investigation.

Hopefully someone will issue a FOIA request to the agency that issued the contract and the waiver. Glad I'm not involved in anything close to this one.

One more point about the sole source: it is common to issue sole source contracts to disadvantaged companies, the 8(a) program for example. However, there has been no mention of Checci being a disadvantaged company. The other side to that is if they were a disadvantanged company there is no way they could have been awarded the sole source contract without knowing the nature of the procurement.

fp

Bayou Magic
01-26-2010, 10:00 AM
Nope, just read the whole article that Chad quoted but he left out an important part about a contract being [b]renewed[/] so it was not a no bid contract that was awarded as stated when he started this thread as Fox entertainment continues it's unfair and unbalanced reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/?test=latestnews

Keep trying Roger...There is no "renewed" clause in the FARs. You can have a contract with a base bid and option years. The option years are exercised at the discretion of the CO. That was not the case in this contract. With a contract as I have described, there is no requirement to go through any procurement actions until the option years expire.

fp

EdA
01-26-2010, 10:23 AM
Give us term limits and kill the future for the career politicians.fp

Amen and add campaign finance reform, won't solve all of our problems but it would be a damn good start

if only we could send all 535 home to spend some time in the real world

and make it illegal for former politicians to be lobbyists

Lucky Seven
01-26-2010, 10:33 AM
Hey Roger,

More great news today about your boy Barry Obama and his admin.

[COLOR="Red"]Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction[/COLO


In a 19-page report card being published Tuesday, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism gives the Obama administration an "F" for failing to take key steps the commission outlined just over a year ago in its initial report.

pat addis
01-26-2010, 10:37 AM
i don't care if it is democrats or republicans doing this, wrong is wrong.i want to know what happened to change and transparancy we were promised

Roger Perry
01-26-2010, 11:23 AM
Hey Roger,

More great news today about your boy Barry Obama and his admin.

[color="Red"]Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction[/COLO


In a 19-page report card being published Tuesday, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism gives the Obama administration an "F" for failing to take key steps the commission outlined just over a year ago in its initial report.


Weapons cache, maps found after man’s arrest

Police find maps of a military facility in the man’s New Jersey motel room
Forrest said Woodson was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle under his jacket when he was arrested. The weapons and maps were found in a later search of his motel room.
Woodson was being held at the Somerset County Jail on charges including unlawful possession of weapons, defaced firearms, armor penetrating bullets and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35076821/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Looks more like an "A" to me.

Lucky Seven
01-26-2010, 11:44 AM
Weapons cache, maps found after man’s arrest

Police find maps of a military facility in the man’s New Jersey motel room
Forrest said Woodson was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle under his jacket when he was arrested. The weapons and maps were found in a later search of his motel room.
Woodson was being held at the Somerset County Jail on charges including unlawful possession of weapons, defaced firearms, armor penetrating bullets and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35076821/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Looks more like an "A" to me.

Yeah, kind of like the Underwear Bomber, "when the system worked" ????

Amatuer hour at the White House continues .........

Buzz
01-26-2010, 11:50 AM
Amen and add campaign finance reform, won't solve all of our problems but it would be a damn good start

if only we could send all 535 home to spend some time in the real world

and make it illegal for former politicians to be lobbyists

I agree with you. Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't, and many here support their opinion.

Roger Perry
01-26-2010, 02:34 PM
[quote=Lucky Seven;557357]Yeah, kind of like the Underwear Bomber, "when the system worked" ????

Amatuer hour at the White House continues .........[/quote


If you thought Bush was so good why didn't he stop 9/11/2001 Before it happened. After all he was warned about it and did nothing.

Bush warned of al-Qaida plot before 9/11
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-04-11 08:30
President Bush was told more than a month before the Sept. 11 attacks that al-Qaida had reached America's shores, had a support system in place for its operatives and that the FBI had detected suspicious activity that might involve a hijacking plot.


The document also said the CIA and FBI were investigating a call to the U.S. embassy in the United Arab Emirates in May "saying that a group of (Osama) bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."

Senior administration officials said Bush had requested the memo after seeing more than 40 mentions of al-Qaida in his daily intelligence updates during the first eight months of his presidency.
The Aug. 6, 2001, memo made plain that bin Laden had been scheming to strike the United States for at least six years. It warned of indications from a broad array of sources, spanning several years.

Guess Bush was too busy being on vacation for the month of August to give a hoot about the security of the U.S.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/11/xinsrc_2b8be6e55d0b43b3937b12dea70ba4e2_l.jpg
Journalist read over the released declassifed document of President Bush's August 2001 briefing on terrorism entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States,' as it is released in the press room at Crawford elementary school Saturday, April 10, 2004, in Crawford, Texas. [AP]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/11/content_322311.htm

road kill
01-26-2010, 03:35 PM
Roger, are you really quoteing the "China Daily??"

Really??

Your starting to scare me..........:D




rk

dnf777
01-26-2010, 03:40 PM
FWIW....

http://www.ae911truth.org/11rfa911.php

YardleyLabs
01-26-2010, 04:01 PM
FWIW....

http://www.ae911truth.org/11rfa911.php
I love conspiracy theorists when they pretend to be rational.:rolleyes:

dnf777
01-26-2010, 07:34 PM
I love conspiracy theorists when they pretend to be rational.:rolleyes:

And I hate them when they present facts that at least make you raise you eyebrows! :cool:

subroc
01-27-2010, 03:18 AM
Here you go dave, one for the ages...

Rosie:



This is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel

JDogger
01-27-2010, 05:23 AM
Roger, are you really quoteing the "China Daily??"

Really??

Your starting to scare me..........:D




rk



Well, a source is a source (of course of course)


JD

Lucky Seven
01-27-2010, 07:07 AM
I also read yesterday that in an interview on one of the Sunday shows ..... Barry Obama said he was disappointed with how lonely the job of the President is/was. He also said that he misses hanging out with "regular" people.

I wonder if he meant "regular" people like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers ???? :rolleyes:

dnf777
01-27-2010, 07:53 AM
So now I hear liberal commentators blasting Obama for his spending freeze....that now is not the time to cut spending.

So let me get this straight.....

We have liberals saying the way to mend our deficit economy is to spend MORE....

And republicans just said the way to increase tax revenues and mend the deficit is to cut taxes on the richest Americans and corporations.....

Sounds like we have dumb and dumber running the show!

Eight years of pure republican policy got us into this mess, and now we have such weak leadership from the dems they can't even get their policies passed......God help us.

M&K's Retrievers
01-27-2010, 08:39 AM
Eight years of pure republican policy got us into this mess, and now we have such weak leadership from the dems they can't even get their policies passed......God help us.

God help us if they do.

ducknwork
01-27-2010, 08:57 AM
Eight years of pure republican policy got us into this mess, and now we have such weak leadership from the dems they can't even get their policies passed......God help us.

Add a few policies in from the Clinton years and you'll be closer to accurate...;)

Cody Covey
01-27-2010, 10:18 AM
Its because us repub's are asshole (per Van Jones) :)

K G
01-27-2010, 12:15 PM
Add a few policies in from the Clinton years and you'll be closer to accurate...;)

Make sure to include his "pass" on taking out OBL...which would have keep 9/11 from ever happening....;-)

kg

badbullgator
01-27-2010, 01:22 PM
Roger, are you really quoteing the "China Daily??"

Really??

Your starting to scare me..........:D




rk

Get it right that is China Daily entertainment.......:D
Roger would make a great ditch digger because he digs deeeeeppppp...