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

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:36 am**

Glad Obama got rid of the F-22, it makes way for a super high performance Dirigible. Whats that you say, Dirigible, are you kidding me? Nope? This thing is going to put the USA air superiority right back where it belongs, Pre-Civil War.

What the fvck are these idiots thinking?

Earmark critic steered cash to blimp, former aide
Politico

U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, center, flanked by his wife, Juanita, right, and his son, Bill Sessions, left, takes the stage for a victory speech News – U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, center, flanked by his wife, Juanita, right, and his son, Bill Sessions, …
John Bresnahan John Bresnahan – Thu Jul 30, 5:19 am ET

Rep. Pete Sessions — the chief of the Republicans’ campaign arm in the House — says on his website that earmarks have become “a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.”

Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps.

What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.

Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis defends the airship project as a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions’s Dallas-area district.

But the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago, with another office in San Antonio — nearly 300 miles from Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the company when he submitted his earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who control the company says that address is merely the home of one of his close friends.

Jim G. Ferguson IV — the younger half of the father-son team behind Jim G. Ferguson & Associates — told POLITICO that he and his father are trying to build an airship with a “high fineness ratio” that can be used in both military and civilian applications.

Fineness ratio is the technical term for the relationship between an airship’s length and its diameter; the higher the fineness ratio, the longer and more slender the airship is. A blimp with a very high fineness ratio could fly faster and be able to stay aloft longer — the holy grail for airship designers during the past century.

Yet Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor any engineering or research expertise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200907 ... tico/25599

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:32 am**

That is criminal

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:00 am**

Definitions

Politician:
Say one thing - do something else

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:27 pm**

The party of family values strikes again. I hope you're proud Clenz.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:16 pm**

So if you are a thief and you steal, stealing is OK. But if you say you are not a thief and you steal then stealing is a crime.

I'm just trying to get the rules of the game down.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:25 pm**

1) It's the hypocracy - let's make a big deal out of bashing earmarks, but then get some yourself.

2) There is petty theft, and then there is grand larceny.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:35 am**

dbackjon wrote:1) It's the hypocracy - let's make a big deal out of bashing earmarks, but then get some yourself.

2) There is petty theft, and then there is grand larceny.

I agree with 1. But I don't want the non-hyprocrits to get away with their theft either. As to 2., from the overall Congressional perspective, $1.6M is petty theft at .0000004% of the overall budget. For you or I it would be grand. Larceny that is.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:40 pm**

D1B wrote:The party of family values strikes again. I hope you're proud Clenz.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:56 pm**

dbackjon wrote:1) It's the hypocracy - let's make a big deal out of bashing earmarks, but then get some yourself.

2) There is petty theft, and then there is grand larceny.

Just one question... is a Hypocracy a society governed by needles?

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:01 pm**

dbackjon wrote:1) It's the hypocracy - let's make a big deal out of bashing earmarks, but then get some yourself.

2) There is petty theft, and then there is grand larceny.

Kind of like "lets make a big deal out of the administration's deficit, then QUADRUPLE it in 5 months.

There's petty theft, and then there's grand larceny.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:39 pm**

AZGrizFan wrote:
dbackjon wrote:1) It's the hypocracy - let's make a big deal out of bashing earmarks, but then get some yourself.

2) There is petty theft, and then there is grand larceny.
Kind of like "lets make a big deal out of the administration's deficit, then QUADRUPLE it in 5 months.

There's petty theft, and then there's grand larceny.

Unusual times, dummy. It's looking more and more like Obama save the economy.

Z - wrong for 9 years and counting.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:04 am**

D,
You're gonna get him pissed and he'll disappear for another four weeks.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:22 am**

D1B wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Kind of like "lets make a big deal out of the administration's deficit, then QUADRUPLE it in 5 months.

There's petty theft, and then there's grand larceny.
Unusual times, dummy. It's looking more and more like Obama save the economy.

Z - wrong for 9 years and counting.

Yeah, wrong again. How is that you dumbasses bitch and moan about the "mountain of debt" incurred by Bush that our childrens' children will have to be paying off, but when Obama QUADRUPLES that mountain in 5 months, nary a peep?

Donk hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:49 am**

I don't like Pete Sessions. I had a little run-in with him and his staff when I was writing a law review article on municipally provided WiFi. My article was a survey of legislation being introduced to block local governments from blanketing their towns with WiFi. They didn't "get" the idea that there may be more than just financial gains to be had (emergency communications, municipal services, etc...). All they cared about was that telecom companies would lose revenue.

He's a corporate whore to n'th degree. Check out his legislation compared to his public financial disclosure. The interests of his supported legislation are in lock step with his personal portfolio (specifically his telecom interests - he used to be an executive at a Baby Bell and he made a fortune on his stock options).

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:51 am**

AZGrizFan wrote:
D1B wrote:
Unusual times, dummy. It's looking more and more like Obama save the economy.

Z - wrong for 9 years and counting.
Yeah, wrong again. How is that you dumbasses bitch and moan about the "mountain of debt" incurred by Bush that our childrens' children will have to be paying off, but when Obama QUADRUPLES that mountain in 5 months, nary a peep?

Donk hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Az,
Did you read this thread yet? http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... =10&t=7779
I stil haven't been able to get any comments on what Obama said.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:18 am**

AZGrizFan wrote:
D1B wrote:
Unusual times, dummy. It's looking more and more like Obama save the economy.

Z - wrong for 9 years and counting.
Yeah, wrong again. How is that you dumbasses bitch and moan about the "mountain of debt" incurred by Bush that our childrens' children will have to be paying off, but when Obama QUADRUPLES that mountain in 5 months, nary a peep?

Donk hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Again, Brunhilda, don't think neither D nor myself ever bitched about his debt. Second, I'll live with going over in the checkbook, if it's meant to do something positive, as his plan seeks to do. It's a gamble, but the potential benefit is huge.

Bush sucked us dry for no benefit, except to spill American blood in the sands of Iraqistan.

And, again.........

Duh.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:37 am**

Cap'n Cat wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, wrong again. How is that you dumbasses bitch and moan about the "mountain of debt" incurred by Bush that our childrens' children will have to be paying off, but when Obama QUADRUPLES that mountain in 5 months, nary a peep?

Donk hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Again, Brunhilda, don't think neither D nor myself ever bitched about his debt. Second, I'll live with going over in the checkbook, if it's meant to do something positive, as his plan seeks to do. It's a gamble, but the potential benefit is huge.

Bush sucked us dry for no benefit, except to spill American blood in the sands of Iraqistan.

And, again.........

Duh.

Exactly. Thanks Captain.

Rapidly beginning to realize that Z is not worth the effort - gutless, hypersensitive and not very smart.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:38 am**

Cap'n Cat wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, wrong again. How is that you dumbasses bitch and moan about the "mountain of debt" incurred by Bush that our childrens' children will have to be paying off, but when Obama QUADRUPLES that mountain in 5 months, nary a peep?

Donk hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Again, Brunhilda, don't think neither D nor myself ever bitched about his debt. Second, I'll live with going over in the checkbook, if it's meant to do something positive, as his plan seeks to do. It's a gamble, but the potential benefit is huge.

Bush sucked us dry for no benefit, except to spill American blood in the sands of Iraqistan.

And, again.........

Duh.

It has already paid off - Kept us from spiralling into a full on depression. Would have been anarchy.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:48 am**

D1B wrote:

Rapidly beginning to realize that Z is not worth the effort - gutless, hypersensitive and not very smart.

Nope, Z's a sharp guy, without a doubt.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:10 am**

Cap'n Cat wrote:
D1B wrote:

Rapidly beginning to realize that Z is not worth the effort - gutless, hypersensitive and not very smart.

Nope, Z's a sharp guy, without a doubt.

They why don't you two get a room?

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:12 am**

D1B wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:

Nope, Z's a sharp guy, without a doubt.

They why don't you two get a room?

He farts too much.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:45 pm**

danefan wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, wrong again. How is that you dumbasses bitch and moan about the "mountain of debt" incurred by Bush that our childrens' children will have to be paying off, but when Obama QUADRUPLES that mountain in 5 months, nary a peep?

Donk hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Az,
Did you read this thread yet? http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... =10&t=7779
I stil haven't been able to get any comments on what Obama said.

So, he spends $2-3 TRILLION and we're supposed to be shouting from the rooftops because he "found" $243 million in savings?

That's what, about 2 hours worth of "Cash for Clunkers" money?

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:49 pm**

AZGrizFan wrote:
danefan wrote:
Az,
Did you read this thread yet? http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... =10&t=7779
I stil haven't been able to get any comments on what Obama said.
So, he spends $2-3 TRILLION and we're supposed to be shouting from the rooftops because he "found" $243 million in savings? That's what, about 2 hours worth of "Cash for Clunkers" money?

So you didn't read the thread then?

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:57 pm**

danefan wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
So, he spends $2-3 TRILLION and we're supposed to be shouting from the rooftops because he "found" $243 million in savings? That's what, about 2 hours worth of "Cash for Clunkers" money?
So you didn't read the thread then?

OK. I read it. He's playing a numbers game. He's blaming the deficit in 10 years on a president who hasn't beenin office for 10 years. How the FUCK does that work?

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:05 pm**

AZGrizFan wrote:
danefan wrote:
So you didn't read the thread then?

OK. I read it. He's playing a numbers game. He's blaming the deficit in 10 years on a president who hasn't beenin office for 10 years. How the FUCK does that work?

Seems to me like he's blaming it on the policies put in place in the last years of the Bush Admin. Seeing as how slow gov't beurocracy is, don't you think its takes a few years (5+) for the real economic effect of programs like the Bush tax cuts and Prescription Drug plans to hit the deficit? Isn't that why they do 10-year deficit projections?

I don't know the answers to these questions. What I do know is that its easy to blame the guy who is currently on the "hot seat" regardless of whether it's his policies that actually created the problem. If the criticism was that he hasn't done enough to right the ship from the spending policies of the past, then I could go along with it. But that doesn't appear to be the criticism. The criticism is that he has exploded the deficit, yet I haven't seen anyone prove that it's actually his policies which created this massive deficit. I haven't heard anyone but Obama try to prove otherwise either.

These are all questions that most Americans, including myself, don't have the slightest idea about, yet the notion of this "exploding" deficit is shoved down our throats by people like Fox News all day long.

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

Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess

Re: Sessions, R-Texas now likes Earmarks I guess