TBayXXXVII

I have an issue with restricting where people can put their money. If people want to donate to politicians, so be it. BUT, I have no qualms with restricting the government. In fact, that's our job of the citizenry, to force the government to be fair and impartial. Force them to rule in the best interests of the public. It's not fair and impartial to favor individuals over another based on donations. It's not in the best interest of the public for a politician to pay off kick backs with taxpayer money. If you remove the bias from the government, you remove the necessity for donations. You'd get what you want. You wouldn't have companies donating to campaigns willy nilly if there isn't enough assurance that they'd get it back.

Yes, but why? It's because they know they only need to undercut the unions by a little bit, to be the low bid. It's the existence of the union backed company bids that allow. So, in the prior example, the job should cost $75k, but Jane has a non-union backed company and sees that Jim bid $100k. She needs only to bid $90k to make it look better. So now she gets the contract and just lines her pocket with the profits and again, the tax payer is footing the bill on the excess. Also, government agencies don't need to always take the lower bid... they can tip-toe around that by saying the higher bid comes with (and I quote... because I've seen it), "a better comfort of known quality". They'll point to reputation or prior work done, or technicalities not even written up in the original proposal requests (RFP's, as they're known).

Union labor "wage" costs aren't the issue. The companies jack up the prices of the products they use, because they know the governments going to pay them... because they're kick backs from campaign contributions and alliances from the union. Jim owns a contracting company and his employees are backed by a union... a union that is aligned with political group in Smithtown. Jim's going to get the bid because of politics. He's going to charge Smithtown $100k for a project that only needs to be bid at $75k. The reason for the extra cost is kickbacks from the party back to Jim and the union. The politicians don't care, because that's tax payer money, not money out of their bank account. The only loser is the tax payer because when these issues are compounded over projects and years, you're talking about millions upon millions of tax payer dollars going from tax payer to help unions and politicians.

I'd have thought that about EVERYONE up until the big DEI movement. Now, my assumption is that anyone not white IS a DEI hire.

Well yeah, I already knew that.

In. Hopefully I finish somewhere outside of the top 2.

No unions allowed in government. Period. Current unions get disbanded and the people in their current jobs are like any other person with a job, that isn't union.

I agree. I think he looks for a job like the Chargers.

It's in the message. Government. Governments can't use unions. Only private businesses.

I watched this one... and another one with LGBTQ conservatives and liberals. In both videos, guess which one was the hateful, demanding, pompous bigot? Yup, you guessed it... the white liberal. LOL

Never met anyone who didn't.

No, my point was that I doubt he was the first. You need only scroll up to see that he wasn't.

Without reading all 18 pages... can I just assume that despite Democrats believing Trump should've been impeached for Russia Collusion (which was falsified info created by the Clinton campaign), and Quid pro quo (even though Biden readily admitted to literally doing just that), they think that Republican's going after Biden is an unfair political attack?

Apparently the tree did make a sound. Scroll up 2 posts.

Yeah, because EVERY family had one, right? LOL When were you born, 1995? LOL Not everyone knew of any "World Championships" for these things in 80's. I knew a ton of kids who beat all kinds of games. It was just something you did. I'm not saying millions of kids beat Tetris, but I'm sure it was done. Hey, great for this kid who did it... good for him. Good for all them. I'm just saying that I doubt he's the first.

You might be a leftist if... -- You call someone racist/xenophobic because they think we should have closed borders. You might be a leftist if... -- You think Climate Change is a "Crisis". You might be a leftist if... -- You call someone a racist for pointing out statistics. You might be a leftist if... -- You think Pro Life is "alt-right". You might be a leftist if... -- You think there are more than 2 genders. You might be a leftist if... -- You resort to -ist/-phobic/-hate name calling because you don't have a real answer. You might be a leftist if... -- You think race, gender, or ethnicity should be a consideration for anything, instead of treating everyone equally. You might be a leftist if... -- You think straight white conservative men, are evil in any way, just because they're straight white conservative men. You might be a leftist if... -- You think socialism (including "Democratic socialism"), and/or communism (or it being done "the right way"), is preferable to capitalism. You might be a leftist if... -- You think Donald Trump is any different than any other politician.

"Very blah"? "Some" talent? LOL I have no idea what they're going to do, but they need to make him a top 5 paid WR in the league, or they're going to lose him. If he hits the open market, they're screwed because someone's going to pony up a 4 year+ / $110M contract. Kansas City comes to mind immediately. I just hope that they don't have to bring Mayfield back to do it.

Donkey Kong came out 3 years before Terri's. Yeah, I know people have been always trying to beat games, but in the 80's, posting it online and on social media, was a bit hard. LOL Also, you weren't going to get the media to care about it enough to report it and home video of it wasn't really that likely either. That's really my only point here.

They had an easy schedule. The only 2 teams Tampa beat with a winning record was Jacksonville and Green Bay who aren't all that good. They lost every other game to teams with winning records. Their biggest issue is that Mayfield is a mediocre to below average QB and Bowles is a below average HEAD coach.

You don't think that the fact that teams struggle against them is the reason why they throw more? In terms of pass attempts, they rank as the 6th most passed on. It's because they know they can't run. So, yeah, teams are getting yards, but it's because they're passing a lot, because they have too and because it's easier than running against them. They rank 1st in TD's scored in the red zone (well, they were after week 15... I haven't paid attention since). I do know that Jacksonville did get 2 "oh by the way TD passes in the red zone", after the Bucs called off the dogs, being up 30-0 and the Saints got 1, so it's possible they didn't finish #1. Anyway, teams that can't run on them try to pass... well, when they need to pass to get in the end zone, they can't score.

Is that why they're 9th in points against and not, say top 3?

I was just focking with you. No, I don't think the Bucs are good... they have Baker Mayfield. I do think the Bucs are going to beat the Eagles Monday night though, but it's not because I think the Bucs are better. I think the crap going on in Philly will yield a less than expected product. The Bucs have nothing going against them. The team likes where they are and who they have. Mentally, they're in a good place. The Eagles are a mess. I think that regardless of who Tampa plays next week, the Bucs get spanked. I think that outside of Mayfield bringing the team down, the Bucs are quite good. Their biggest flaw/hole, is the middle of the OLine. Those guys blow at run blocking. Pass blocking, they, and the whole line is quite good. Their receivers are good, the backs are good, the DLine is good, etc. At every level, the team is "good", they just have a crap QB and mediocre HC. Against a team playing like crap and in turmoil, like the Eagles, I think the Bucs win. Against a good team running on all cylinders, like the Niners, I think they get spanked.

Yeah, it's been around for forever. I never knew there was a scholarship for it and back in the day, I doubt there was or if there was, it wasn't widely known. I HIGHLY doubt this kid was the first.

He's probably not the first person to beat the game, just has parents who think it's important enough to make a major case about it. "Look at me!!!"

LOL A. The woman giving birth, isn't the "mother", it's a woman giving birth to someone else's child. An agreement she made WILLINGLY. The baby isn't being "ripped away", because it's not hers. No one forced her to do anything. My body my choice, right? Or are you now against women's right to choose what they want with their body? B. When a piece of trash leftist tells me that my take is horrific, then I know I'm in the right. Not surprised you agree with the pope, because he's an idiot too. If you can't have a child because one of the two parents can't CREATE a child, then adoption is perfectly acceptable, a great idea even. If people CAN create a child but physically can't carry a child, then there's nothing wrong with asking someone if they can take on that burden. They can freely say no, and no it is. It's not that hard of a concept.