[Dukehorn]

I think it’s more of an indictment of the defense contractor industry that you can’t find someone that can take the no. 2 position without some lobbyist connection.

But don’t let logic get in the way of how defense procurement works.

Ah, John. Showing that typical ignorance on-line. It’s good to be anonymous eh?

So you post that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, i.e. in the top 10% so that proves that he’s not smart?

I would say that I’m surprised at your logic, but considering that you’re quite impotent at formulating your arguments, I’ll just let that slide.

And let’s not even go into Bush’s grades and how that works out for Ivy League legacies. What’s more offensive: affirmative action or legacies? Oh, yeah, you’re a Republican, so buying influence is A-OK. Got it…..

And I’d rather be a Socialist Democrat, then an anti-science, creationist loon, but hey you picked your party.

[Dukehorn]

Based on some of the logic here, I guess I should spend more time at redstate.com and whatever creationists/anti science blogs are out there if I want to be “well-informed” about science.

Considering that I’ve worked with blastocysts before and that most of the people who talk @#$@ about stem cells probably doesn’t know what the word means. I think I’ll pass.

[Dukehorn]

Based on some of the logic here, I guess I should spend more time at redstate.com and whatever creationists/anti science blogs are out there if I want to be “well-informed” about science.

Considering that I’ve worked with blastocysts before and that most of the people who talk @#$@ about stem cells probably doesn’t know what the word means. I think I’ll pass.

[Dukehorn]

Based on some of the logic here, I guess I should spend more time at redstate.com and whatever creationists/anti science blogs are out there if I want to be “well-informed” about science.

Considering that I’ve worked with blastocysts before and that most of the people who talk @#$@ about stem cells probably doesn’t know what the word means. I think I’ll pass.

[Dukehorn]

Based on some of the logic here, I guess I should spend more time at redstate.com and whatever creationists/anti science blogs are out there if I want to be “well-informed” about science.

Considering that I’ve worked with blastocysts before and that most of the people who talk @#$@ about stem cells probably doesn’t know what the word means. I think I’ll pass.

[Dukehorn]

Based on some of the logic here, I guess I should spend more time at redstate.com and whatever creationists/anti science blogs are out there if I want to be “well-informed” about science.

Considering that I’ve worked with blastocysts before and that most of the people who talk @#$@ about stem cells probably doesn’t know what the word means. I think I’ll pass.

[Dukehorn]

I’m going to get in trouble here, but I’ll pipe up anyways.

I totally understand where the UAW is coming from. A number of these same Congressmen were the ones that stated that the Wall Street bailout should not have any caps on executive compensation. Last week, the head of Merrill Lynch wanted a $10 million dollar bonus. So, in essence, on Wall Street, whether the market is going up or down, executives are “worthy” of their compensation.

Even assuming that the free market is rationale (which seems inherently false since non-rationale human beings participate and run the market–watch a number of PhD theses come out on this over the next few years), then one should accept the assumption that banding together as an economic force to better your position is also an inherently rationale position.

So why is it that workers and retirees are the ones getting trashed by the GOP while those executives that put together these crappy mortgage derivatives are getting off scot-free (and retaining their fraudulent bonuses of the past 3 years).

If I was the UAW, I’d be ticked off seeing these requests be made of folks making under 75k a year while those traders and bankers making in excess of 500k a year who started this credit crisis not be asked to sacrifice anything.

Just the other perspective. As a lawyer, we try to look at both sides (right??).

Also, the fact that these same GOP Senators happen to all represent states with foreign automaker plants with no unions is irrelevant…… Yeah, not quite sure about that.

[Dukehorn]

I’m going to get in trouble here, but I’ll pipe up anyways.

I totally understand where the UAW is coming from. A number of these same Congressmen were the ones that stated that the Wall Street bailout should not have any caps on executive compensation. Last week, the head of Merrill Lynch wanted a $10 million dollar bonus. So, in essence, on Wall Street, whether the market is going up or down, executives are “worthy” of their compensation.

Even assuming that the free market is rationale (which seems inherently false since non-rationale human beings participate and run the market–watch a number of PhD theses come out on this over the next few years), then one should accept the assumption that banding together as an economic force to better your position is also an inherently rationale position.

So why is it that workers and retirees are the ones getting trashed by the GOP while those executives that put together these crappy mortgage derivatives are getting off scot-free (and retaining their fraudulent bonuses of the past 3 years).

If I was the UAW, I’d be ticked off seeing these requests be made of folks making under 75k a year while those traders and bankers making in excess of 500k a year who started this credit crisis not be asked to sacrifice anything.

Just the other perspective. As a lawyer, we try to look at both sides (right??).

Also, the fact that these same GOP Senators happen to all represent states with foreign automaker plants with no unions is irrelevant…… Yeah, not quite sure about that.

[Dukehorn]

I’m going to get in trouble here, but I’ll pipe up anyways.

I totally understand where the UAW is coming from. A number of these same Congressmen were the ones that stated that the Wall Street bailout should not have any caps on executive compensation. Last week, the head of Merrill Lynch wanted a $10 million dollar bonus. So, in essence, on Wall Street, whether the market is going up or down, executives are “worthy” of their compensation.

Even assuming that the free market is rationale (which seems inherently false since non-rationale human beings participate and run the market–watch a number of PhD theses come out on this over the next few years), then one should accept the assumption that banding together as an economic force to better your position is also an inherently rationale position.

So why is it that workers and retirees are the ones getting trashed by the GOP while those executives that put together these crappy mortgage derivatives are getting off scot-free (and retaining their fraudulent bonuses of the past 3 years).

If I was the UAW, I’d be ticked off seeing these requests be made of folks making under 75k a year while those traders and bankers making in excess of 500k a year who started this credit crisis not be asked to sacrifice anything.

Just the other perspective. As a lawyer, we try to look at both sides (right??).

Also, the fact that these same GOP Senators happen to all represent states with foreign automaker plants with no unions is irrelevant…… Yeah, not quite sure about that.

[Dukehorn]

I’m going to get in trouble here, but I’ll pipe up anyways.

I totally understand where the UAW is coming from. A number of these same Congressmen were the ones that stated that the Wall Street bailout should not have any caps on executive compensation. Last week, the head of Merrill Lynch wanted a $10 million dollar bonus. So, in essence, on Wall Street, whether the market is going up or down, executives are “worthy” of their compensation.

Even assuming that the free market is rationale (which seems inherently false since non-rationale human beings participate and run the market–watch a number of PhD theses come out on this over the next few years), then one should accept the assumption that banding together as an economic force to better your position is also an inherently rationale position.

So why is it that workers and retirees are the ones getting trashed by the GOP while those executives that put together these crappy mortgage derivatives are getting off scot-free (and retaining their fraudulent bonuses of the past 3 years).

If I was the UAW, I’d be ticked off seeing these requests be made of folks making under 75k a year while those traders and bankers making in excess of 500k a year who started this credit crisis not be asked to sacrifice anything.

Just the other perspective. As a lawyer, we try to look at both sides (right??).

Also, the fact that these same GOP Senators happen to all represent states with foreign automaker plants with no unions is irrelevant…… Yeah, not quite sure about that.

[Dukehorn]

I’m going to get in trouble here, but I’ll pipe up anyways.

I totally understand where the UAW is coming from. A number of these same Congressmen were the ones that stated that the Wall Street bailout should not have any caps on executive compensation. Last week, the head of Merrill Lynch wanted a $10 million dollar bonus. So, in essence, on Wall Street, whether the market is going up or down, executives are “worthy” of their compensation.

Even assuming that the free market is rationale (which seems inherently false since non-rationale human beings participate and run the market–watch a number of PhD theses come out on this over the next few years), then one should accept the assumption that banding together as an economic force to better your position is also an inherently rationale position.

So why is it that workers and retirees are the ones getting trashed by the GOP while those executives that put together these crappy mortgage derivatives are getting off scot-free (and retaining their fraudulent bonuses of the past 3 years).

If I was the UAW, I’d be ticked off seeing these requests be made of folks making under 75k a year while those traders and bankers making in excess of 500k a year who started this credit crisis not be asked to sacrifice anything.

Just the other perspective. As a lawyer, we try to look at both sides (right??).

Also, the fact that these same GOP Senators happen to all represent states with foreign automaker plants with no unions is irrelevant…… Yeah, not quite sure about that.

[Dukehorn]

How about learning to read? Rubin is not his top financial advisor. Some of his proteges are on Obama’s team, but since they’ve been acclaimed on both sides (Republican and Democrats), I’m not quite sure what your point is.

[Dukehorn]

How about learning to read? Rubin is not his top financial advisor. Some of his proteges are on Obama’s team, but since they’ve been acclaimed on both sides (Republican and Democrats), I’m not quite sure what your point is.

[Dukehorn]

How about learning to read? Rubin is not his top financial advisor. Some of his proteges are on Obama’s team, but since they’ve been acclaimed on both sides (Republican and Democrats), I’m not quite sure what your point is.

[Dukehorn]

How about learning to read? Rubin is not his top financial advisor. Some of his proteges are on Obama’s team, but since they’ve been acclaimed on both sides (Republican and Democrats), I’m not quite sure what your point is.

[Author]

Posts