Showing 1-9 of 9
And then there's this from Sen. Corker on the "In Session" blog:
“Many of the people in the Senate are looking at this as having to do with this presidency (of Democrat Barack Obama) and saving this presidency instead of realizing the basic fundamentals of this bill are wrong.”
Of course no Republicans are looking at this as an opportunity to destroy the presidency. None of them might ever think of this as, say, Obama's Waterloo.
Here's hoping that Jamie Hollin pulls it out. I'm getting sick of Pam Murray's divisive BS.
http://tomoveanation.com
"The Salt Lake City Council unanimously adopted a fabulous ordinance protecting gay and transgender residents from discrimination in housing and employment--public and private--with the support of the LDS church."
Very, very surprising!
http://tomoveanation.com
Three UT football players arrested overnight for attempted armed robbery:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/nov/12/two-football-players-face-armed-robbery-charges-tv/
Everyone check out Big G's letter to the editor in today's Tennessean! Surprising that commie rag would print an intelligent letter from a normal, right-thinking American!
All Democrats are commies.
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/655/86/ ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
A number of commenters around the blogosphere seem to think Ms. Swift's live performance was somewhat off key unlike her recordings. Perhaps her awards should actually have gone to her recording engineers who cleaned up her original work.
Gilbert Jr, thank you for giving us all a heads up on that brilliant letter!!!!! Gilbert Martin is, or should be, a role-model to us all! Of course, he doesn't go far enough in that letter, or maybe the commie Tennessean emasculated the letter, but when the libtards are flushed from the government, the new President and congress should repeal everything that Democrats have ever done. That's what the all the founding fathers would want!!!!!