Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I guess this is Jon Tester's penalty for not being able to "deliver" Montana in November.


http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009 ... news04.txt

Tens of millions of federal stimulus dollars intended to put Montanans to work may never make it to the state, as they already have been promised to large, multinational corporations.

That's because the federal agencies charged with building the border stations used a noncompetitive system to award the upfront architecture and engineering work to California-based Parsons Corp., a firm 11,500 strong that in 2008 reported revenues in excess of $3.4 billion.

Hmmmm...."noncompetative system".....Haliburton, anyone? Apparently two wrongs really DO make a right. Fuckin' hypocrites.

Curious silence from the donk apologists.....

.....but seriously, how could you defend such behavior?

AZGrizFan wrote:Curious silence from the donk apologists.....

.....but seriously, how could you defend such behavior?

Did you expect anything else?

You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

dbackjon wrote:You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

And fucking Montanans out of jobs. A park was receintly designed and is currently being built in Missoula. Guess what, some fucking out of state firm did the drawings, plans, and the like. WTF! The city didn't even look into asking a local firm to do the work. Just ship that job right out of the state.

dbackjon wrote:You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

I think you're right but it is slightly worse from Obama since he is not doing the things that people believed in him for. Confidence, morale, and so on. It's hard not to wonder what it would be like if the country were to elect a guy that did what he said and had a track record that shows he's genuine.


Ron Paul.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

I think you're right but it is slightly worse from Obama since he is not doing the things that people believed in him for. Confidence, morale, and so on. It's hard not to wonder what it would be like if the country were to elect a guy that did what he said and had a track record that shows he's genuine.


Ron Paul.

Speak the truth brother.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

And fucking Montanans out of jobs. A park was receintly designed and is currently being built in Missoula. Guess what, some fucking out of state firm did the drawings, plans, and the like. WTF! The city didn't even look into asking a local firm to do the work. Just ship that job right out of the state.

Question - I would imagine in this case, the out of state firm's bid was cheaper. Should the city (and by extension, YOU) pay more to keep it local?

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
And fucking Montanans out of jobs. A park was receintly designed and is currently being built in Missoula. Guess what, some fucking out of state firm did the drawings, plans, and the like. WTF! The city didn't even look into asking a local firm to do the work. Just ship that job right out of the state.

Question - I would imagine in this case, the out of state firm's bid was cheaper. Should the city (and by extension, YOU) pay more to keep it local?

Gotta agree with Jon on this one too Grizza unless you have information that I don't know about this process. I don't know for sure but this stuff is put out on something similar to the plans exchange and you go bid on the projects. If local architects, planners, and landscapers can't compete with the one that got the project then they either don't want to or need to figure out why they couldn't. A simple for instance from personal experience is that I charge what I think a sprinkler system is worth my time to do the job. There are others that believe they can do the job for less and I am happy to see them do those jobs and learn their lessons. Do I wish everybody would pay what I want them too? Sure I do but that ain't the way the world works...at least not on this level.

We can't have it both ways here my man.

Stimulus Check List

1. Shut down Chrysler Dealers who didn't support us - check
2. Make sure states that did not vote for us get as little stimulus as possible - check
3.

Government is government. Same BS no matter who is in charge. At least this time a war wasn't started so a US company could thrive.

Col Hogan wrote:Stimulus Check List

1. Shut down Chrysler Dealers who didn't support us - check
2. Make sure states that did not vote for us get as little stimulus as possible - check
3.

Chrysler has to downsize if they want to even have a hope at surviving.

The states not getting money (Montana, Mississippi. etc) get ignored all the time. Big business and higher population areas will always get checks cut for them. Those that have the loudest voice are usually heard.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Question - I would imagine in this case, the out of state firm's bid was cheaper. Should the city (and by extension, YOU) pay more to keep it local?

Gotta agree with Jon on this one too Grizza unless you have information that I don't know about this process. I don't know for sure but this stuff is put out on something similar to the plans exchange and you go bid on the projects. If local architects, planners, and landscapers can't compete with the one that got the project then they either don't want to or need to figure out why they couldn't. A simple for instance from personal experience is that I charge what I think a sprinkler system is worth my time to do the job. There are others that believe they can do the job for less and I am happy to see them do those jobs and learn their lessons. Do I wish everybody would pay what I want them too? Sure I do but that ain't the way the world works...at least not on this level.

We can't have it both ways here my man.

I must be the only one wanting to keep jobs in state. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the state would do things inhouse instead of farm out shit.

grizzaholic wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Gotta agree with Jon on this one too Grizza unless you have information that I don't know about this process. I don't know for sure but this stuff is put out on something similar to the plans exchange and you go bid on the projects. If local architects, planners, and landscapers can't compete with the one that got the project then they either don't want to or need to figure out why they couldn't. A simple for instance from personal experience is that I charge what I think a sprinkler system is worth my time to do the job. There are others that believe they can do the job for less and I am happy to see them do those jobs and learn their lessons. Do I wish everybody would pay what I want them too? Sure I do but that ain't the way the world works...at least not on this level.

We can't have it both ways here my man.

I must be the only one wanting to keep jobs in state. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the state would do things inhouse instead of farm out shit.

And I would too. As long as you are consistant and realize the trade off, which, IMHO, is better for the city as a whole.

Unfortunately, too many only look at one aspect (slightly higher taxes), and don't realize that it is their neighbor they are keeping employed.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
I must be the only one wanting to keep jobs in state. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the state would do things inhouse instead of farm out shit.

And I would too. As long as you are consistant and realize the trade off, which, IMHO, is better for the city as a whole.

Unfortunately, too many only look at one aspect (slightly higher taxes), and don't realize that it is their neighbor they are keeping employed.

Shit...now there are 2 things that we agree on.

slycat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Stimulus Check List

1. Shut down Chrysler Dealers who didn't support us - check
2. Make sure states that did not vote for us get as little stimulus as possible - check
3.

Chrysler has to downsize if they want to even have a hope at surviving.

The states not getting money (Montana, Mississippi. etc) get ignored all the time. Big business and higher population areas will always get checks cut for them. Those that have the loudest voice are usually heard.

Tell that to the profitable Chrysler dealers shut down with the unprofitable ones.....

grizzaholic wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Gotta agree with Jon on this one too Grizza unless you have information that I don't know about this process. I don't know for sure but this stuff is put out on something similar to the plans exchange and you go bid on the projects. If local architects, planners, and landscapers can't compete with the one that got the project then they either don't want to or need to figure out why they couldn't. A simple for instance from personal experience is that I charge what I think a sprinkler system is worth my time to do the job. There are others that believe they can do the job for less and I am happy to see them do those jobs and learn their lessons. Do I wish everybody would pay what I want them too? Sure I do but that ain't the way the world works...at least not on this level.

We can't have it both ways here my man.

I must be the only one wanting to keep jobs in state. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the state would do things inhouse instead of farm out shit.

Grizza sometimes you look at things as if they are in a vacuum. How many Montana companies do work outside the State that help keep jobs in Montana? I'm not for farming out if local businesses can compete. A few losses here and there can make for better companies and get rid of the ones that can't compete. If a company can come from out of state and bear all those costs and still do it for less then someithing is wrong there. A buddy of mine's company does work for the State of Idahol on their highways and so forth so what are we gonna do isolate and rely only on this state? I'm for keeping jobs in Montana as well but we have to be able to compete for the jobs in our own state that are available instead of making a welfare case out of the local businesses.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
I must be the only one wanting to keep jobs in state. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the state would do things inhouse instead of farm out shit.

Grizza sometimes you look at things as if they are in a vacuum. How many Montana companies do work outside the State that help keep jobs in Montana? I'm not for farming out if local businesses can compete. A few losses here and there can make for better companies and get rid of the ones that can't compete. If a company can come from out of state and bear all those costs and still do it for less then someithing is wrong there. A buddy of mine's company does work for the State of Idahol on their highways and so forth so what are we gonna do isolate and rely only on this state? I'm for keeping jobs in Montana as well but we have to be able to compete for the jobs in our own state that are available instead of making a welfare case out of the local businesses.

I am all for Montanan's doing work for other states/countries....I am just sick of seeing jobs that Montanan's can do being shipped out of state.

dbackjon wrote:You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

McCain didn't run on the "Change" buzzword.

slycat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Stimulus Check List

1. Shut down Chrysler Dealers who didn't support us - check
2. Make sure states that did not vote for us get as little stimulus as possible - check
3.

Chrysler has to downsize if they want to even have a hope at surviving.

The states not getting money (Montana, Mississippi. etc) get ignored all the time. Big business and higher population areas will always get checks cut for them. Those that have the deepest pockets are usually rewarded.

FIFY.

We're Doomed!

grizzaholic wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Grizza sometimes you look at things as if they are in a vacuum. How many Montana companies do work outside the State that help keep jobs in Montana? I'm not for farming out if local businesses can compete. A few losses here and there can make for better companies and get rid of the ones that can't compete. If a company can come from out of state and bear all those costs and still do it for less then someithing is wrong there. A buddy of mine's company does work for the State of Idahol on their highways and so forth so what are we gonna do isolate and rely only on this state? I'm for keeping jobs in Montana as well but we have to be able to compete for the jobs in our own state that are available instead of making a welfare case out of the local businesses.

I am all for Montanan's doing work for other states/countries....I am just sick of seeing jobs that Montanan's can do being shipped out of state.

I am with you on the final destination here. I just choose to place the blame on the businesses that are letting this happen. If an out of state company comes in to do the job and makes a fair profit then the fault lies at the feet of the Montana businessman doesn't it?

If an out of state competitor comes in and loses money on the project then the MT business is in a stronger position the next round or at least in the long run. I can assure you that local businesses are looked at in a kind light on the bid proposal process and if they come within a reasonable percentage of an out of state bid they will get the contract.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
I am all for Montanan's doing work for other states/countries....I am just sick of seeing jobs that Montanan's can do being shipped out of state.

I am with you on the final destination here. I just choose to place the blame on the businesses that are letting this happen. If an out of state company comes in to do the job and makes a fair profit then the fault lies at the feet of the Montana businessman doesn't it?

If an out of state competitor comes in and loses money on the project then the MT business is in a stronger position the next round or at least in the long run. I can assure you that local businesses are looked at in a kind light on the bid proposal process and if they come within a reasonable percentage of an out of state bid they will get the contract.

It seams that the city hands out the contracts. They get the brunt of the blame on this. I guess atleast they allowed local guys to do all the work on the place.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You posted that what, an hour ago...


None competitive bids are not good - and another thing that apparently "change" did not apply to.


Of course, had McCain won, it would have been Haliburton with the contract...so I guess that does qualify as change

McCain didn't run on the "Change" buzzword.

[youtube][/youtube]

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
McCain didn't run on the "Change" buzzword.

[youtube][/youtube]

Yes, we can!!