Engorgeous George

I wonder if anyone will bring in some Trump Baby balloons.

Broke and Bankrupt Billionaires: 10 Wealthy People Who Fell From the Top - Business Insider

Both are on my ignore list.

How does he distinguish the male pigeons from the females, or is that distinction lost on him? Is he an any pigeon will do sort of fellow?

The grammar is correct. As for the spelling you are correct, there is a typo and a misspelling of Waters last name. My typos are inadvertent. Maxine Waters idiocy is her brand. As for you, well you offer what value you offer.

Federal Register :: Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles

You might be aware that you are paraphrasing what I have previously said in this thread, had you bothered to read it.

If they want me to take them at all seriously they ought not to have Maxine Waters leading the charge.

Through the magic of google he does now. Through the magic of google we are all experts in matters we had never heard of ten minutes ago.

The authority of Doge is quite limited. The ability of them to have an impact through the authority of others in the cabinet or through the president is expansive, and yet not unlimited. Lawsuits will determine the extent to which the President can "back door" do line item vetos on appropirations by Congress. I think this is all necessary and very long overdue. Whether in the current rush it is being done correctly withing the framework of our Constitution I do not know. I trust the Courts will be asked to make that clear.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=ding+fries+are+done+song&mid=96E43FA7CD6C91F8B09B96E43FA7CD6C91F8B09B&mcid=9FF3859ECA824B2DBCDED434B30532B9&FORM=VIRE

Actually, not that I can see. Please see the purpose outline in the attached EO. Federal Register :: Establishing and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" If you are too busy to click through I will copy the relevant portion below> Section 1 . Purpose. This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President's DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity. (I have added the bolding for emphasis of the mission statement.)

all I find is the Esecutive Order. Interestingly taht order outlines a purpose. Taht purpose is quite limited tonupdating systems. Stopping payments is not updating systems. Now in the course of evaluating systems if information comes to light such that others can try to stop payments or truncate agencuies maybe they can or cant based on other powers, but DOGE has quite a limited mission. See the order: Federal Register :: Establishing and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency"

I'm guessing that was the Bounty Bowl. I would have to look it up to be certain.

Right now I am seeing each side of the debate make amny self-serving, partisan presumptions. What I have not yet seen is a clear decalration, an authoritative decalration of teh powers, processes, limitations, and checks and balances and oversight reporting of the "Agency" I am going to look around adn see if they have a written charter of some kind. Frankly i do not know, but it sure would make me feel better if there were such a document, something to hold Doge to other than the limits of Elon's imagination.

I presume such suits have been thought about by various right wing think tanks for several months now. Hopefully that means this suit was not just drafted up since Bondi became the A.G. Hopefully it was well thought out and not rushed, but frankly I have some doubts. The initial success of any suit like this is going to be highly dependant on where it is filed and which judge assigned. That satement, that the success depends on a firendly reception or not is another way of saying this is a rather open question of authority. Frankly I have never understood where the authority comes from for States and Municipalities to defy the federal government on immigration and naturalization matters. Some believe that since we have the word "sanctuary" that there must be a power of sanctuary, but that is not necessarily so. Historically sanctuary powers or rights have always been invoked in opposition to the lawful soveriegn, and generally unsuccessfully so except in the case of the Catholic Church when it was at its most powerful it has rarely succeeded and even then success was very limited, and temporar, and with repercussions to the church and the clergy giving sanctaury.

In many ways I see this as a work around to the fact that the President does not have a line item veto on the budget and Congresses insistence to have an omnibus budget bill with all sorts of pork and perks inserted thereto with misleading sounding titles for thsoe programs. The problem is, for generations now, politicians have politicianed rather than klegislating for the benefit of we the people. Both parties are complicite in the fraud and deceit which hass run ramopant. They ahve ignored the problem, kicked the can down teh road, and now it, the prolblem, the abuses has grown into a monster. Or maybe more accurately it is like the Aegean stables, only a demigod superhero thinking outside the box can clean this up.

Who has Constitutional authority to conduct foriegn relations and to conclude treatises?

I had collateral duties to my main duties as a Prosecutor. Amoung them were advising on open records matters, and for a two year operiod I had to re-write and update a purchasing code so I am fairly familiar with governmental contracting. To answer your question, yes, sophisticated bidders make certain they are aware of their competitors past bids. We routinely got demands for details on past bids. Actually we routinely got demands for currently submited bids but obviously we did not disclose those details as there are open records exceptions for extant bids up until the bid closure deadline. I occassionally would take calls from new businesses, particularly Minority and Women owned ones who would get referred to me by our legislators who knew me. They would want to know how they could bid on government contracts. (Dirty little secret here. Many folks have heard horror stories about such bids, and for major projects the bids can requirte hundreds of documents to support the bid, but there are many lucrative contracts with little or no competition and so bidders on those contracts do not bid with a sharp pencil. They make great profit. They are easily underbid and the contracts are still profitable. It just takes a bit of effort to learn the system. It is not really all that complex.) I would provide them with some standard treatises I had drafted for new or inexperienced bidders, and I would then encourage them to do open record demands for the last round of bidding on any contract to go to school on those bids. I also cautioned them to follow the bid requirements to a tee. Many wanted to change the parameters just slightly as they saw better ways of providing a good or service and were trying to help us save money. They would bid not on the current contract, but by changing the terms actually be proposing a different contract. That meant their bid was not acceptable as properly submitted. Purchasing Departments do not like to be told during the bid period there is a better way to do a contract. They want to be told that prior to then, in the Request for Proposal term prior to the Requests for Bids term.

Once sealed bids are opened and awarded the bids are subject to FOIA demands. All smart contractors go to school on the last round of bids. All of them.

This man knows things.

I am surprised this never became prevalent in figure skating.

Jesuit education?

There are no reports, just partisan speculation to try to drum up opposition. Still, I support auditing the auditors. The computer systems i had passing familiarity with had auditing trails automatically archived whenever anybody accessed the systems. It was easily possible to find out what information they were accessing, for how long, and whether or not they made downloads. (Now there was no way, to my knowledge, of knowing whether screen shots were taken instead of downloads atempted. for that one would want to prohibit accessing the system while in possession of such equipment) I encourage the Congressional Oversight Committee and any other relevant Committees to obtain such audit trails and to thoroughly examine them. Only if they find any irregularities do I then support subpooening Musk to answer questions. I suspect there will not be such irregularities, yet I know that some folks cannot resist exceeding their authority and abusing their access and working around and exceeding their access so I fully support and strongly encourage auditing these Doge auditors.

Reminds me of the Native American psychiatrist who, after listening to his patient told his patient he is a Wigwan and a Teepee. The patient asked what the psychiatrist meant and the psychiatrist said you're two tents. Two tents (tense).