posted on March 9, 2007 09:21:57 AM new
Monday, June 19, 2006
Administration Oversight
Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush Administration
Under the Bush Administration, the “shadow government” of private companies working under federal contract has exploded in size. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending increased by over $175 billion dollars, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending.
This growth in federal procurement has enriched private contractors. But it has also come at a steep cost for federal taxpayers.
Overcharging has been frequent, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered.
At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report is the first comprehensive assessment of federal contracting under the Bush Administration. The report reaches three primary conclusions:
Procurement Spending Is Accelerating Rapidly. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending rose by 86% to $377.5 billion annually. Spending on federal contracts grew over twice as fast as other discretionary federal spending. Under President Bush, the federal government is now spending nearly 40 cents of every discretionary dollar on contracts with private companies, a record level.
Contract Mismanagement Is Widespread. The growth in federal contracts has been accompanied by pervasive mismanagement. Mistakes have been made in virtually every step of the contracting process: from pre-contract planning through contract award and oversight to recovery of contract overcharges.
The Costs to the Taxpayer Are Enormous.
The report identifies 118 federal contracts worth $745.5 billion that have been found by government officials to include significant waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. Each of the Bush Administration’s three signature initiatives — homeland security, the war and reconstruction in Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina recovery — has been characterized by wasteful contract spending.
There is no single reason for the rising waste, fraud, and abuse in federal contracting. Multiple causes — including poor planning, noncompetitive awards, abuse of contract flexibilities, inadequate oversight, and corruption — have all played a part. The problems are widespread, undermining such major initiatives as domestic spending on homeland security, the rebuilding of Iraq, and the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
Government contracting grew by 86%.
Noncompetitive contracts grew by 115%.
Federal procurement spending is highly concentrated on a few large contractors, with the five largest federal contractors receiving over 20% of the contract dollars awarded in 2005. Last year, the largest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, received contracts worth more than the total combined budgets of the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Congress. The fastest growing contractor under the Bush Administration has been Halliburton. Federal spending on Halliburton contracts increased over 600% between 2000 and 2005.
Dollars, Not Sense is based on a review of over 500 reports, audits, and investigations by government and independent bodies, such as the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and agency inspectors general. It also draws on interviews with experts, the Special Investigation Division’s own extensive investigations, data from the Federal Procurement Data System, and investigative reporting.
In addition to analyzing the mammoth increase in federal contract spending, Dollars, Not Sense provides the first government-wide estimate of the number and value of “problem contracts” under the Bush Administration. The report is accompanied by a searchable database of problem contracts.
Documents and Links
Highlights and New Findings
Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush Administration
posted on March 10, 2007 01:35:58 PM new
Yep, wars are EXPENSIVE. Any idiot knows that.
Then there's the positive side.....when those contracts are going to American companies - usually do- then American workers AND the American economy benefits.
Giving all the funds to all the social programs just grows government, makes more dependent on BIG BROTHER and nothing comes back to either the economy nor American workers.
THAT'S gov. funds being SQUANDERED. lol
On the issue of 'waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement'...
....yep...just as a national health care system would be ran.
But some STILL want BIG BROTHER to take on THAT HUGE program. tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 10, 2007 01:38 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2007 02:35:37 PM new
Just can't stay away from me , can ya linduh !
Sad to see you so happy about squandering YOUR tax money but hating the thought it might be put to better use helping Americans. The loss detailed here goes right to the ultra-wealthy...and that ain't you!
You are so anti-American you should be deported to IRAQ!
posted on March 10, 2007 02:49:57 PM new
As anyone with just TWO brain cells can tell....I responded to the stupid article.
===========
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
Thomas Jefferson
And the problem SEEN THEN has only grown worse.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 10, 2007 03:28:56 PM new
LIAR_K said this, "Yep, wars are EXPENSIVE. Any idiot knows that."
The idiot BUSHY didn't understand that "Yep, wars are EXPENSIVE" when he and his gang told the American people that Iraqi OIL would pay for HIS IRAQ WAR.
I believe its been people like LIAR_K that were the IDIOTS. It was her kind that voted for the BUSH IDIOT. (TWICE)
BUSHY and his Gang also said this about THE BUSH WAR "THE WAR WILL LAST WEEKS NOT MONTHS".
Into the 4th year of THE BUSH WAR the U.S. has spent 407 Billion dollars with no end in sight. American Dollars are being spent in THE BUSH WAR at over 1 Billion dollars a week.
Much of that money is borrowed and added to our National Debt. A Debt that is so big and growing so fast UNDER BUSHY that our children and now grand children will be paying the money back.
posted on March 10, 2007 03:38:11 PM new
The BROKEN RECORD, 'waco' repeats again...and again...and again.
And here the liberals were saying that was the ONLY reason we were going into Iraq....was FOR THE OIL.
Now they're complaining that we're NOT using 'oil money' to finance the wars.
LOL LOL LOL Typical liberals...can't make up their minds.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 10, 2007 03:52:54 PM new
sybil posts ANOTHER falsehood.
Anyone can find his original speech were he listed SEVERAL reasons we were going into Iraq.
The largest being that saddam would NOT comply after 13 years of, as clinton called it - GAME PLAYING with the inspectors.
Will the liberals EVER acknowledge the TRUTH?
Nope....not their style.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 10, 2007 04:02:00 PM new
Uh, linduh , I suggest you READ/LEARN about what lead up to the Libby trial,you know , the one where he was found GUILTY of lying.
If you do a little research the REASON he lied was to cover up the fact that Valerie Plame was outed by some one in the bushit administration and WHY she was outed...it has to do with obviously forged documents that BUSH was TOLD were forged and he presented the information in them as the truth when he KNEW it wasn't. The FORGED documents said Saddam had/tried to get "Yellow cake"... he didn't.
Joe Wilson told the truth and if you can prove he didn't then do so....no one else has been able to prove HE lied.
That jury was exactly like the OJ jury. DUMB people who couldn't understand the facts as presented to them.
That's what happens to our judicial system WHEN all the intelligent voters don't WANT to serve on jury duty. You end up with those on the bottom of the barrel who can hardly find their way home.
==========
Imo that verdict was a travisty of justice.
I believe it made history....the fact that someone was found guilty of doing something they can't really prove he did.
Faulty memory? Oh....many, many in the clinton administration, under oath, couldn't remember a thing either. But that was different. NOT>
Here we have an accusation that NO ONE WAS INDICTED FOR - outing plame LOL...and NO ONE....but the political 'game machine' was able to convince a bunch of dummies that he lied rather than it was just a slip of memory - which so many of YOU liberals here prove YOU suffer from daily. LOL
He'll appeal....and I hope IF he's not freed from this FARCE of a conviction....then this President will pardon him.
He's NOTHING like the sleezebags clinton pardon....or those who paid the clinton funds millions of dollars to be pardoned.
LOL - It's all in the 'game' of politics.
But don't even TRY to convince me you're SINCERE about this being ANY different....you know, when it DIDN'T matter to you one bit.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 10, 2007 04:32:47 PM new
Again LIAR_K said these words, "Yep, wars are EXPENSIVE. Any idiot knows that.".
I only pointed BUSHY must not have understood LIAR_K's words.
Then LIAR_K said this about me, "The BROKEN RECORD, 'waco' repeats again...and again...and again."
We all know there is no bigger "BROKEN RECORD" THAN YOUR DEFENSE OF BUSHY.
LIAR_K, how dare you say I say the same things about THE BUSH WAR. The number of BILLIONS of dollars America spends changes weekly. The number of dead American change almost daily. The number of Wounded Troops changes daily in THE BUSH WAR.
The only thing that hasn't changed is THE BUSH LIES OF YESTERDAY AND TODAY. I understand you would love for people to forget all the LIES BUSHY TOLD AND IS STILL TELLING AMERICA but guess what that ain't gonna happen.
posted on March 10, 2007 04:40:52 PM new
Let's see....
.....while 'waco's' in repeat mode again....
....and speaking of spending....
Have the ones in power been talking about DECREASING spending? I sure haven't read anything about them calling for major cuts in the budget.
Why would that be? LOL LOL
Nope...but we SURE DO hear them talking about, promising per election time, ALL that they were going to SPEND on.
So....is the one who actually CUT our tax rates the bad guy? Is the one that gave us BACK our part of the surplus the bad guy?
Or are the ones that want to SINK us DEEPER in debt with some socialist health plan AND more and more domestic spending the ones that are NOT living up to what they've been WHINING about - the deficit?
ROFLOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 10, 2007 04:43:39 PM new
ROFLMAO !!!!
"""That jury was exactly like the OJ jury. DUMB people who couldn't understand the facts as presented to them.
That's what happens to our judicial system WHEN all the intelligent voters don't WANT to serve on jury duty. You end up with those on the bottom of the barrel who can hardly find their way home.""""
linduh PROVE that !!!!!
Ha you sure are in a tizzy !
Hahahaha! Poor linduh...just doesn't "get it"...
Guess what...they still found him GUILTY !!! Hahaha!!!!!
posted on March 11, 2007 09:08:10 AM new
Any SANE person KNOWS that was NOT a jury of his 'peers'.
ROFLOL
And proof of that can well be seen by the questions the jury asked the judge.
One could clear see they didn't have a CLUE.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 11, 2007 09:42:59 AM new
And another WAKE UP reminder for old 'waco' who often forgets what the FACTS actually are.
Bushs war? Nope. U.S. war....with almost FULL support from our Congress.
In Dec. 1998 CLINTON ordered a PRE-EMPTIVE attack on Iraq. Had they attacked us then? NOPE. Did that matter to most of the liberals THEN? Nope.
Why did he do that? Read HIS own words....CNN has a transcription. In that speech to our Nation clinton said he had ordered the bombing of Iraq to DESTROY saddam's CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS.
NOW....DENY THAT.
But somehow now it's been all twisted around to be ONLY Bush's war.
What a bunch of delusional liberals they are to actually believe that nonsense.
=====================
Here 'waco' take a quick trip down memory lane - and WAKE UP TO REALITY for once
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry - all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Joe Biden - August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Chuck Schumer - October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
John Kerry - January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger - February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Senator Carl Levin - September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Senator Hillary Clinton - October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright - November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Robert Byrd - October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Al Gore - September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Joe Biden - August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."
Bill Clinton - December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Hillary Clinton - October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Dick Gephardt - September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."
Russell Feingold - October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
Johnny Edwards - January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
John Kerry - January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
Bill Nelson - September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."
Al Gore - September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Tom Daschle - February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, ""Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.""
Bill Richardson - May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."
Hillary Clinton - October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Al Gore - December 16, 1998
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons?"
Bill Clinton - February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Madeleine Albright - February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Nancy Pelosi - December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore - September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
John Kerry - October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Ted Kennedy - September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Jay Rockefeller - October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Joe Biden - August 4, 2002
"He does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
Madeline Albright - February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face - and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."
Jane Harman - August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."
Dick Durbin - September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
Bill Nelson - August 25, 2002
"My own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."
Nancy Pelosi - October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Evan Bayh - August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."
Bill Clinton - February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
Hillary Clinton - January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
Joe Biden - August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."
Johnny Edwards - February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where - if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him - it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
Joe Biden - August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."
Senator Bob Graham - December 8, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry - February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
==================
And the LUDICROUS liberal argument that we were LIED to by THIS administration - and only this administration.....or that the info was distorted on purpose.....just goes to show how out of touch the liberals are with reality.
THEIR party....THEIR party leaders were sayig the SAME EXACT THING even BEFORE this President took office. BEFORE 9-11.
WAKE UP TIME.
This is AMERICAS war.
And what are the liberals calling for? OUR withdrawal and thereby admitting DEFEAT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 11, 2007 10:58 AM ]
posted on March 11, 2007 02:15:37 PM new
""""Linda_K
posted on March 11, 2007 09:08:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any SANE person KNOWS that was NOT a jury of his 'peers'."""""
Where's your proof ????
Nevermind, I know there is no proof and you wouldn't answer anyway...
posted on March 11, 2007 01:28:49 PM new
Too funny, Mingo.
It's fun to summarize the unintelligible and boorish comments. Try it Mingo. First a statement to summarize the topic followed by the gist of the comments. It's hilarious. Yesterday I wrote one in which the topic was the outrageously elaborate U.S. embassy in Iraq. In an effort to address that topic, Linda pointed out that we are not at war with Great Britain or China or Mexico. Hahaha! In desparation, she concluded by calling one of the most intelligent posters here an ignorant Canadian Liberal.
posted on March 11, 2007 02:59:46 PM new
And did you notice how OLD linduh's quotes are ???
If I would've used anything that old she would've been screaming, "BWAWCK Old News Old news ..doesn't count BWAWCKKKK!"""
So the neocons want to ignore the lies by our CURRENT administration...the one who GOT US INTO THIS WAR and blame those who made comments in the past.?????
posted on March 11, 2007 10:49:11 PM new
Helen, Mingo and Bigpeepa, that was harsh calling me an ignorant Canadian Liberal and then I got called a Christian BASHER because I questioned why she keeps talking to God about me and wasting his time, especially when she insists I mean nothing to her.
And why is she thanking God that I live in Canada? What does that mean? She was saying how effective guns are, maybe if I was on the other side of the border she'd come looking for me like that crazy astronaut in the diapers? Hahahaha......
posted on March 12, 2007 05:16:05 AM new"Helen, Mingo and Bigpeepa, that was harsh calling me an ignorant Canadian Liberal and then I got called a Christian BASHER because I questioned why she keeps talking to God about me and wasting his time, especially when she insists I mean nothing to her."
"And why is she thanking God that I live in Canada? What does that mean? She was saying how effective guns are, maybe if I was on the other side of the border she'd come looking for me like that crazy astronaut in the diapers? Hahahaha......"
Good questions, Kiara! My original summary was clearly much too compact. Next recap will include such disordered thoughts. In the meantime, don't overestimate the safety of a border. Keep your car windows rolled up.
posted on March 12, 2007 05:26:49 PM new
" bigpeepa
posted on March 12, 2007 05:32:40 AM ,
Liar_k wishes all of us lived on Mars without a computer."
Ya know Big, I think Linda has something here.
I think you,Helen,and crowfart would enjoy living on Mars. Just think of the possibilities.No taxes,no rich people,no air pollution(cause there aint no air)No wars,so you dont need national security.You 3 little piggies can live in your "Utopia"....until the big bad wolf comes along and huffs and puffs and blows your house down.But dont worry,by the time aliens come along and invade your planet from the Andromeda galaxy, you all be dead anyway.
However the one glitch is you three wouldnt have a computer,and this could lead to disaster.Helen would have a hissyfit because she couldnt spread her wisdom and 50 dollar college words over at OTWA,and she would have only you and crowfart to talk to,and that would leave anyone unhappy.Crowfart couldnt take without being on a computer for more then 30 minutes at a time.Thru frustration,she would be yelling at Linda from 30 million miles away and wonder why Linda is not answering her.She would become so frustrated over this,she would hop on the nearest ASStroid and just hang herself.You being unable to bang out your capitol letters on your keyboard,would hop on the first Federation Starship,fly around Uranus and collect Klingons....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on March 12, 2007 11:44:19 PM new
And classic would still be posting his latest hooker's photo on the Internet and we'd MISS it!!!! OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!
