myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Drain the swamp or different alligators?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4682
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We must dam up the swamp to prevent it from draining!!!!!
She's not far left enough, she must go!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
California Democrats decline to endorse Feinstein
The party elects not to give its backing to the state's senior senator.


By DAVID SIDERS and CARLA MARINUCCI 02/25/2018 06:39 AM EST

SAN DIEGO — In a sharp rebuke to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party has declined to endorse the state’s own senior senator in her bid for reelection.
Riven by conflict between progressive and more moderate forces at the state party’s annual convention here, delegates favored Feinstein’s progressive rival, state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein by a vote of 54 percent to 37 percent, according to results announced Sunday.

Neither candidate reached the 60 percent threshold required to receive the party endorsement for 2018. But the snubbing of Feinstein led de León to claim a victory for his struggling campaign.
“The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” de León said in a prepared statement. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.”

A centrist Democrat, Feinstein has long maintained an uneasy relationship with activists who dominate state party conventions, and the vote this weekend — while embarrassing — was not unexpected. The result followed two days of lobbying by the candidates in convention speeches and throughout the convention halls.
In an appeal to thousands of delegates Saturday, de León portrayed himself as an agent of change. He cast Feinstein, without mentioning her name, as a Washington power broker out of touch with progressive activists at home.

“I’m running for the U.S. Senate because the days of Democrats biding our time, biting our tongue, and trying to let it work the margins are over," he said to cheers. “I’m running because California’s greatness comes from paths of human audacity, not congressional seniority.”

The non-endorsement appears unlikely to immediately alter the trajectory of a contest Feinstein is leading by a wide margin.
First elected in a 1992 special Senate election, Feinstein is outpolling de León 46 percent to 17 percent among likely California voters, according to the most recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. Her financial advantage is even more overwhelming: Feinstein held close to $10 million in cash on hand at the end of last year, while de León reported raising just $500,000.
Addressing the convention Saturday, Feinstein reminded delegates of her experience and what she portrayed as a lifetime of service in the cause of Democratic values. She focused heavily on her advocacy of gun control measures, and she urged Democrats to resist splintering in the face of a Republican-controlled Washington.
California Democrats, she said, have “the largest delegation in the House. You’ve got Kamala Harris and me in the Senate.” She said Democrats can more effectively advance their principles “if we have unified support.”
Feinstein lost the state party endorsement to a rival Democrat, John Van de Kamp, when she ran for California governor in 1990. And though supporters this year waved signs and stopped Feinstein to pose for photographs, she at times appeared out of step working the convention halls.
Interrupted in her convention speech Saturday by music signaling her time to speak had run out, Feinstein said, “I guess my time is up.”

As she left the stage, de León supporters in the crowd yelled back at the 84-year-old, “Time’s up! Time’s up!”
The state party returned a non-endorsement in California’s other major statewide contest, as well.
In the race for governor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom led all candidates with 39 percent support, followed by state Treasurer John Chiang and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has drawn close to Newsom at the top of statewide public opinion polls, finished a distant fourth, at 9 percent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/25/california-democrats-feinstein-leon-423452
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you liberal lefties think you need to go farther left to win, alrightythen, good luck with that.
You think the founders are nothing but a bunch of old men who had no idea of what they were talking about. The Constitution is way out of date and should be trashed, this country is unfair, Europe hates us, we have to be more like them. And most of all, we have no right to be a superpower!

Yep, that's the road to success and winning elections. Ha! But first, you better get rid of the electoral college if you think you'd stand a chance, just let California and New York vote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10379
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't respond to the money laundering charges, eh? Another effort to divert, eh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4682
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Can't respond to the money laundering charges, eh? Another effort to divert, eh?

Won't defend your own party, so you charge diversion, eh?
But you can't be too upset, you'll still have Nancy 'crumbs" Pelosi to admire and worship, oh, and Maxine Waters, another pillar of political awsomeness.

Now waiting for mac's charge of misogyny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10379
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW—I support Feinstein, although in the past I have joked that she is the only Republican I’ve ever voted for. You can vote for whomever you want since you live in California—but it is unlikely that there will be a Republican on the ballot. The GOP doubled down on prejudice with an anti-Mexican initiative that has effectively destroyed their brand in California, so they rarely make the top two in statewide races. And Kern County just lost a case about gerrymandering to minimize representation by Hispanics. Your guys are on a roll. I’m hoping that is a precedent for the national trends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10379
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Giving away even more money to pig oil. What part of kleptocracy does the right wing not understand? The tax cut for Exxon alone last year was $6 billion.

Quote:
The federal royalty rate for deepwater drilling operations would be cut from 18.75 percent to 12.5 percent under a proposal being considered by an Interior Department advisory panel. That recommendation from a Royalty Policy Committee subcommittee follows the Trump administration's move to allow offshore drilling off U.S. coastal waters. (The Washington Post)


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/02/exxon-mobil-profit-trump-tax-cut/300076002/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10379
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh look, another alligator:

Quote:
By Michael Biesecker | AP March 2
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday tapped a chemical industry insider to run the Environmental Protection Agency office that oversees emergency response to hazardous spills and cleanups of the nation’s most toxic sites.

The White House announced that Trump has nominated Peter C. Wright to serve as EPA’s assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management. Wright has worked as a corporate lawyer at Dow Chemical Co. since 1999.

Despite Trump’s campaign pledges to “drain the swamp” in Washington, Wright’s nomination is the latest example of the president appointing corporate lawyers or lobbyists to supervise federal offices that directly regulate their former employers.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said Wright is “exceptionally qualified” to lead the Office of Land and Emergency Management.

“He has the expertise and experience necessary to implement our ambitious goals for cleaning up the nation’s contaminated lands quickly and thoroughly,” Pruitt said.

If confirmed by the Senate, Wright would oversee the EPA office that responds to such large-scale national emergences as oil spills and unauthorized releases of chemicals or radioactive materials. Wright would also oversee the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program.

Dow merged with rival DuPont last year, creating the world’s largest chemical maker. The companies are also financially responsible for cleaning up toxic sites where they caused pollution.

At Dow, Wright has served as managing counsel for environmental health and safety, as well as the company’s principle counsel for mergers and acquisitions. Wright also advised Dow on Superfund cleanups.

An analysis of EPA data by The Associated Press shows Dow and DuPont are listed as responsible parties for more than 100 of the toxic sites currently undergoing or slated for cleanup across the nation.

Asked about the potential for conflicts of interest, EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Wright would meet with EPA’s ethics office to discuss his new role.


Make America toxic again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10379
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those economy strangling regulations? They're not. From Vox. Payoff to the Koch's.

Quote:
President Donald Trump’s administration has been on a deregulatory bender, particularly when it comes to environmental regulations. As of January, the New York Times counted 67 environmental rules on the chopping block under Trump.

This is not one of Trump’s idiosyncrasies, though. His administration is more ham-handed and flagrant about it, but the antipathy it expresses toward federal regulation falls firmly within the GOP mainstream. Republicans have been complaining about “burdensome” and “job-killing” regulations for so long that their opposition to any particular health, safety, or environmental regulation is now just taken for granted.

For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?

These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them.

As it happens, though, we know something about the costs and benefits of federal regulations. In fact, Trump’s own administration, specifically the (nonpartisan, at least for now) White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), just released its annual report on that very subject. (Hat tip to E&E.)

The report was released late on a Friday, with Congress out of session and multiple Trump scandals dominating the headlines. A cynical observer might conclude that the administration wanted the report to go unnoticed.

Why might that be? Well, in a nutshell, it shows that the GOP is wrong about regulations as a general matter and wrong about Obama’s regulations specifically. Those regulations had benefits far in excess of their costs, and they had no discernible effect on jobs or economic growth.

OMB, more like OMG, amirite?
OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.

Environmental regulations have the highest costs and highest benefits
At least since Reagan, conservatives have had particular and growing hostility toward environmental regulations. This has proven a source of great anguish to (older) environmentalists, who lament that such regulations used to be bipartisan.

But the right-wing turn against environmental rules is no great mystery. The OMB report reveals the core reason: Of all the regulations passed from 2006 to 2016, it is environmental regulations, specifically air pollution regulations, that had both the highest costs and the highest benefits.

EPA rules, OMB writes, “account for over 80 percent of the monetized benefits and over 70 percent of the monetized costs” of federal regulation during this period.

For example, new fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines had (in 2001 dollars) between $6.7 billion and $9.7 billion in benefits. But they cost industry $0.8 billion to $1.1 billion.


The MATS rule, aimed at reducing toxic emissions from power plants, had between $33 billion and $90 billion in benefits (in 2007 dollars, for some reason), but it cost industry $9.6 billion.

In short, air quality rules secure enormous health benefits for the American public, but they also ask a great deal of industry.

To frame the same point another way: Air quality regulations serve as a downward redistribution of wealth, out of the pockets of industrialists and into the pockets of ordinary Americans, particularly the poor and vulnerable Americans (African Americans and Hispanics in particular) who tend to live closest to pollution sources. They shift costs, from the much higher health and social costs of pollution remediation to the comparatively smaller costs of pollution abatement.

And therein lies the source of industry and GOP rage toward EPA. It’s why EPA delayed and delayed air rules under Bush. It’s why the GOP Congress worked so furiously to block air rules under Obama. And it’s why EPA is weakening or repealing air rules as fast as possible under Trump.

The GOP is opposed to downward redistribution of wealth. If one policy goal has unified the right above all else, it is upward redistribution. Even as its base drifts further into a fog of xenophobic, reactionary ressentiment, its moneyed interests and policy leaders remain laser-focused on reducing taxes and regulatory burdens on the wealthy. Upward redistribution is what unites GOP health care policy, tax policy, financial sector policy, and environmental policy.

That is why Republicans hate EPA and its rules: They are a burden to industry, but worse, they are a burden to industry that is very obviously worth it. Industry makes a small sacrifice, public health improves, and economic growth continues apace. EPA rules are a living demonstration of the good that government can do.



The “job-killing” thing is also nonsense
Okay, environmental regulations produce enormous health and social benefits, but don’t they kill jobs?

Not really. This is another myth that conservatives have simply repeated with such tenacity that no one bothers to scrutinize it anymore.

The OMB report has a long section looking into the employment effects of environmental regulations, assessing several studies and literature reviews. Mostly it is devoted to explaining how complex and vexed such analysis is. Jobs may be eliminated in one place/industry and created in another. Jobs may be eliminated in the short term but a larger number created in the long term. Effects on employment must be disentangled from contemporaneous social and economic trends, many of which have much larger effects. And so on.

The conclusion — which is in keeping with the broader literature, as I described in this post — is that there may be local and temporary employment effects from environmental regulations, either positive or negative, but at the aggregate national level, such regulations simply aren’t a significant factor in employment. Their effects are lost amid the noise of demographic shifts and macroeconomic drivers.

They don’t “kill jobs.” From the perspective of the overall economy, they don’t do much of anything to jobs, other than shift them from certain regions/industries to others. As it happens, those shifts are often unfavorable to GOP constituencies, but that’s not a license to, you know, lie about them.

There is no coherent policy justification for Trump’s deregulatory frenzy
If the GOP wants to explicitly align itself behind the interests of particular polluting businesses and against the broader public interest, well, it can. If it doesn’t think the costs to industry of reducing pollution are worth much larger benefits to public health, it can say so. If it wants to transfer wealth back from the public to industrialists by reversing all of Obama’s rules, that is its right as the party in power.

But GOP lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to simply burp up the words “burdensome” and “job-killing” and move on. The OMB finds no evidence that federal regulations have any noticeable impact on aggregate national employment or economic growth. There is evidence that they produce public benefits well in excess of their costs.

If EPA head Scott Pruitt wants to say that defending children from toxics or rural communities from coal ash pollution is burdensome, he ought to offer some numbers, or evidence, or ... something. Goofy homilies are not enough. (His latest claim is that the Bible recommends the deregulatory agenda.)

Believing in the inherent costliness and ineffectiveness of federal regulation is not a religious matter. It’s not an article of faith. It’s an empirical assertion, an argument, and the available evidence indicates that it is incorrect.

It is certainly not a belief to which journalists owe any particular deference.

Until Trump’s administration makes a case that its own OMB and agencies are wrong — not just by a little, but by tens of billions of dollars — the presumption of every journalist and politico in Washington should be that there is no coherent policy rationale for Trump’s deregulatory agenda.

It is, like his health, tax, and infrastructure initiatives, simply the polar opposite of populism: the targeted transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, at the public’s expense.


Make American's die again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10379
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those economy strangling regulations? They're not. From Vox. Payoff to the Koch's.

Quote:
President Donald Trump’s administration has been on a deregulatory bender, particularly when it comes to environmental regulations. As of January, the New York Times counted 67 environmental rules on the chopping block under Trump.

This is not one of Trump’s idiosyncrasies, though. His administration is more ham-handed and flagrant about it, but the antipathy it expresses toward federal regulation falls firmly within the GOP mainstream. Republicans have been complaining about “burdensome” and “job-killing” regulations for so long that their opposition to any particular health, safety, or environmental regulation is now just taken for granted.

For instance, why would the Environmental Protection Agency close a program investigating the effects of toxins on children’s health? Is there some evidence that the money is wasted or poorly spent? Why would the EPA allow more unregulated disposal of toxic coal ash? Don’t people in coal regions deserve clean air and water? Is there any reason to think coal ash is currently well-regulated?

These questions barely come up anymore. Republicans oppose regulations because they are regulations; it’s become reflexive, both for the party and for the media the covers them.

As it happens, though, we know something about the costs and benefits of federal regulations. In fact, Trump’s own administration, specifically the (nonpartisan, at least for now) White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), just released its annual report on that very subject. (Hat tip to E&E.)

The report was released late on a Friday, with Congress out of session and multiple Trump scandals dominating the headlines. A cynical observer might conclude that the administration wanted the report to go unnoticed.

Why might that be? Well, in a nutshell, it shows that the GOP is wrong about regulations as a general matter and wrong about Obama’s regulations specifically. Those regulations had benefits far in excess of their costs, and they had no discernible effect on jobs or economic growth.

OMB, more like OMG, amirite?
OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion
By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.

Environmental regulations have the highest costs and highest benefits
At least since Reagan, conservatives have had particular and growing hostility toward environmental regulations. This has proven a source of great anguish to (older) environmentalists, who lament that such regulations used to be bipartisan.

But the right-wing turn against environmental rules is no great mystery. The OMB report reveals the core reason: Of all the regulations passed from 2006 to 2016, it is environmental regulations, specifically air pollution regulations, that had both the highest costs and the highest benefits.

EPA rules, OMB writes, “account for over 80 percent of the monetized benefits and over 70 percent of the monetized costs” of federal regulation during this period.

For example, new fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines had (in 2001 dollars) between $6.7 billion and $9.7 billion in benefits. But they cost industry $0.8 billion to $1.1 billion.


The MATS rule, aimed at reducing toxic emissions from power plants, had between $33 billion and $90 billion in benefits (in 2007 dollars, for some reason), but it cost industry $9.6 billion.

In short, air quality rules secure enormous health benefits for the American public, but they also ask a great deal of industry.

To frame the same point another way: Air quality regulations serve as a downward redistribution of wealth, out of the pockets of industrialists and into the pockets of ordinary Americans, particularly the poor and vulnerable Americans (African Americans and Hispanics in particular) who tend to live closest to pollution sources. They shift costs, from the much higher health and social costs of pollution remediation to the comparatively smaller costs of pollution abatement.

And therein lies the source of industry and GOP rage toward EPA. It’s why EPA delayed and delayed air rules under Bush. It’s why the GOP Congress worked so furiously to block air rules under Obama. And it’s why EPA is weakening or repealing air rules as fast as possible under Trump.

The GOP is opposed to downward redistribution of wealth. If one policy goal has unified the right above all else, it is upward redistribution. Even as its base drifts further into a fog of xenophobic, reactionary ressentiment, its moneyed interests and policy leaders remain laser-focused on reducing taxes and regulatory burdens on the wealthy. Upward redistribution is what unites GOP health care policy, tax policy, financial sector policy, and environmental policy.

That is why Republicans hate EPA and its rules: They are a burden to industry, but worse, they are a burden to industry that is very obviously worth it. Industry makes a small sacrifice, public health improves, and economic growth continues apace. EPA rules are a living demonstration of the good that government can do.



The “job-killing” thing is also nonsense
Okay, environmental regulations produce enormous health and social benefits, but don’t they kill jobs?

Not really. This is another myth that conservatives have simply repeated with such tenacity that no one bothers to scrutinize it anymore.

The OMB report has a long section looking into the employment effects of environmental regulations, assessing several studies and literature reviews. Mostly it is devoted to explaining how complex and vexed such analysis is. Jobs may be eliminated in one place/industry and created in another. Jobs may be eliminated in the short term but a larger number created in the long term. Effects on employment must be disentangled from contemporaneous social and economic trends, many of which have much larger effects. And so on.

The conclusion — which is in keeping with the broader literature, as I described in this post — is that there may be local and temporary employment effects from environmental regulations, either positive or negative, but at the aggregate national level, such regulations simply aren’t a significant factor in employment. Their effects are lost amid the noise of demographic shifts and macroeconomic drivers.

They don’t “kill jobs.” From the perspective of the overall economy, they don’t do much of anything to jobs, other than shift them from certain regions/industries to others. As it happens, those shifts are often unfavorable to GOP constituencies, but that’s not a license to, you know, lie about them.

There is no coherent policy justification for Trump’s deregulatory frenzy
If the GOP wants to explicitly align itself behind the interests of particular polluting businesses and against the broader public interest, well, it can. If it doesn’t think the costs to industry of reducing pollution are worth much larger benefits to public health, it can say so. If it wants to transfer wealth back from the public to industrialists by reversing all of Obama’s rules, that is its right as the party in power.

But GOP lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to simply burp up the words “burdensome” and “job-killing” and move on. The OMB finds no evidence that federal regulations have any noticeable impact on aggregate national employment or economic growth. There is evidence that they produce public benefits well in excess of their costs.

If EPA head Scott Pruitt wants to say that defending children from toxics or rural communities from coal ash pollution is burdensome, he ought to offer some numbers, or evidence, or ... something. Goofy homilies are not enough. (His latest claim is that the Bible recommends the deregulatory agenda.)

Believing in the inherent costliness and ineffectiveness of federal regulation is not a religious matter. It’s not an article of faith. It’s an empirical assertion, an argument, and the available evidence indicates that it is incorrect.

It is certainly not a belief to which journalists owe any particular deference.

Until Trump’s administration makes a case that its own OMB and agencies are wrong — not just by a little, but by tens of billions of dollars — the presumption of every journalist and politico in Washington should be that there is no coherent policy rationale for Trump’s deregulatory agenda.

It is, like his health, tax, and infrastructure initiatives, simply the polar opposite of populism: the targeted transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, at the public’s expense.


Make American's die again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18411

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who sez the 'net isn't right now and then?

A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in Montana when suddenly a brand-new 7 Series BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

Bud looks at the man, who obviously is a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Apple I phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Apple iPad that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Galaxy S5 and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government", says Bud.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked.
You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know crap about how working people make a living - or about cows, for that matter.

This is a herd of sheep.

Now give me back my dog."


AND THAT FOLKS IS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2955

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's hilarious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
Page 28 of 31

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group