Bush may have been a poor president, but it's past time to stop blaming he and his administration for all the problems of the world.
When you were in school, did anybody offer you a chair to stand on in the shower because, as Lefty Gomez said to Phil Rizzuto, "That water'll be ice cold by the time it gets all the way down to you?"
Wook, who was that a-hole of a lawyer that used to post on O-Live that we used to crack short jokes on? I can't tell you how much I enjoyed that. Edit: Was his name masonjars?
Hey I appreciate your sympathy . . . maybe you have some redeeming quality afterall and I was too quick to judge. My day is still about the same (not better or worse) but thanks for caring. Once I'm done with work and can enjoy the weather it will be a really good day. On my side, I feel a little sad for you too . . . judging people so quickly comes across as bitter , IMO. But hey it's a day of sympathy, and if you can give me some, I think I can find it in me somewhere to feel sympathy for you . . . so I say with sincerity that I hope you are having a good day.
I'm having a fantastic day! My closest friend has moved back to this area so we can hit sporting events together. My wife & I are leaving for Hawaii in a few days and I just kicked the holy 'you know what' out of an ambulance chasing attorney at mediation this morning.
How is it a blunder to incentivize companies who are drawing upon federal stimulus funding to spend that money on American companies' supplies and labor? Isn't that the point of the stimulus? Furthermore, wouldn't the ire have been more fierce had this clause not been included and companies were sending our money overseas? Snapping up Chinese plastics and Russian steel, etc. I can see the conservatives rallying over that one: "Obama's stimulus package pumping money into the economy ... just not America's." I just find it funny that the party whose rallying cry has historically been "Buy American" and a message of economic isolationism is now criticizing Obama for focusing on the homefront during these difficult economic times. It's ridiculous and transparent. -Pop
Good to hear (hate to see you throw a streotype in there), but it is good to see your day is going well. I'm curious, how do you kick someones ass in a mediation. The ones I have attended, I was instructed that I did not have to agree to any figure. So if some lawyer kicked my ass at mediation, I would just say no deal and go to trial (but I'm sure I am oversimplfying it). I've had my busineess ass kicked in arbitration, but never mediation. Genuine question (if you can put your stereotype of me aside) . . how does one kick ass in mediation (and can you teach my lawyers to do that).
Doesn't the above violate NAFTA? Regardless, your rant doesn't hold any water. There is a difference between a group of people wanting to "buy American" and putting mandates on buying American and violating trade agreements with our allies. Additionally, you clearly just buy into your party's bumper stickers if you think fiscal conservatives have a battle cry for "economic isolationism". And further, you are still resorting to attacking Bush, posters and conservatives instead of discussing the topic. Get over yourself.
IT'S FEDERAL MONEY. There's a huge difference between that and privately generated cash flow. Nobody is advocating mandates on private dollars. But if private companies are going to be using taxpayer dollars to finance their own operations, expansion, r&d, etc., I'm fine with them being restricted to helping other American companies. Now if these companies generate their own cash flow through sales, investments, stock, bonds, etc., they can spend it how they choose. In Canada, China, Mexico, whatever ... See the difference? -Pop
But you are assuming this difference because you think that the Federal Government should still mandate where a private firm spends the money after it has been injected into the private sector. I think once the money is injected into the private sector, they should spend the money where it will be most efficient, not where the government mandates. If the private sector can get twice the output by spending the money in Mexico, they should do so.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. You can't spend food stamps on video poker, even though it may generate more money for you to spend on food and other items. This is a purposeful injection of money for the specific purpose of assisting U.S. companies and the U.S. labor force. Just like the food stamp program is a purposeful program for the specific purpose of allowing families in poverty to afford food. With this sort of an investment by the federal government, on behalf of the taxpayers, I think they should have some sort of say in how and where that money is spent. -Pop
You must have missed this part . . . That's a description of a "trade war." What part of that do you not understand?
"With us or against us" refered to the fight against terrorism--and it was the right policy. This trade fiasco has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with Obama's ignorance about how free trade really works. Obama doesn't have a clue about business or trade or anything else. What he has are some pie-in-the-sky ideas about how the world should work in a socialist nirvana. This is becoming clearer every day.
Fair enough, we will probably just disagree. However, if I apply for a Federal Grant to fund my research project, or research based company, should the government be able to tell me where to buy my materials and my labor? That would seem odd.
Why should that seem odd? Again, it is the government's money, why shouldn't they have a say in how it is spent? Grants to the private sector that I'm familiar with do carry restrictions on using US labor. I haven't seen it for materials though. barfo
I'm sure we can come up with all sorts of examples of federal dollars going to individuals or the private sector, with all different levels of control. I'm of the opinion that this unique program, with its intended outcome, lends itself to a higher level of government regulation. -Pop
The key to winning at mediation has several parts. First, choose a good mediator. I prefer retired judges as they have seen it all and have no ambitions anymore. Using attorneys on the "list" means you get a judge wannabe who simply wants everyone to meet in the middle. I want someone with guts- even if it's against me. Second, have a deep understanding of my case and be able to effectively counter the other side with real facts and not a bunch of shadow boxing. Third, use the facts to get the mediator on my side. If I'm pushing downhill, I'm going to win. Fourth, know when to draw a line and make it stand. Of course, all of this works best when I have a strong case. As to using the term "ambulance chaser", it's relative. To me, I take a more noble view of lawsuits than most. If the other side has a true case (even if they are wrong, but have a good line of reasoning), I can respect that. But plaintiff attorneys who know they don't have a case (as here) and simply use their position to try and squeeze $5-10,000 from an insurance company, really bother me. It's a form of legal extortion. When I have those, I like to get their heads in the mud and trample on them. I give them nothing and make them like it. [see, wouldn't you like a claims adjuster like me in your corner?] One last thought. When I have the losing case, I tend to be fairly generous and get it over with quickly. Someitmes you have good cases and sometimes I have stinkers.
What HardWhileHeTalks just said was I can flip flop my foreign policy based on what is convenient. It's a war of hypocrisy! /HardTalk school of reading comprehension
