If the equipment is paid for, (fixed one time cost) and the bandwidth is purchased on an annual contract basis (fixed annual cost) it cost the taxpayer........
Not a sous.
If the equipment is paid for, (fixed one time cost) and the bandwidth is purchased on an annual contract basis (fixed annual cost) it cost the taxpayer........
Not a sous.
So http://www.whitehouse.gov/ is free? It doesnt cost anybody anything?
Originally Posted by Meriam Webster
whitehouse.gov costs the salaries of the people who run it. (fixed cost, doesn't matter what they put there)
The bandwidth is purchased on an annual contract basis.
My humble apologies for putting an extra 's' on the word sou.....
It is an old french coin, which was essentially worthless.
OK so whitehouse .gov does cost tax payers money.
The live .gov stream for 09/09/09 speech was one of the best Ive seen, little lag, good quality A/V, and allmost no buffering. So if .gov has allready paid for a contract for that type of bandwidth, with tax payer money, I feel we should see alot more bang for our buck from whitehouse.gov. Maybe a 24/7 feeds from both the POTUS and the Congressional branch. Heck lets have a live feed from the SCOTUS when they are in session. If its under contract we shouldnt be wasting money by not using the bandwidth.
Democrats say South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress is turning into a financial boon for his opponent, Rob Miller.
Miller is a former Marine and Iraq war veteran who resigned his commission to run for Congress. His campaign last year presented Wilson with the most serious challenge he’d had since winning a special election in 2001. Miller got 46 percent of the vote.
Contributions to Rob Miller's campaign fund since Baby Wilson temper tantrum.....$751,562 from 20,494 American Citizens!!
Interesting article by Pat Buchanan.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln
Interesting article but rather...one sided in his view.
I am not sure that Robert E. Lee was once a national hero or Stonewall Jackson? They were both confederate generals. Fighting to destroy the United States! National heros???
He sees newer heros (and really...the only ones he can think of after 1865 are Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez) as replacing instead of in addition to earlier heros.
To him Christmas and Easter may have been holidays that united the country but I feel that really reinforces his "European Christian core" as he calls it.
I agree with the loss of civility in our lives but I think Mr. Buchanan is mourning the loss of his world. His experience of this country may not be the same as everyone else.
He doesn't even include rock as music that defined us!
But I find most offensive of all this statement...
I love American history - but not the fake "George Washington chopped down the cherry tree" type. I love the real American history - warts - genocide, racism and all. Fairy tales are for kids. I enjoy learning how this country has survived and prospered because of ordinary men and women who sometimes do extraordinary things.One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal
OMDL!!!!!
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11150809
I think Nutsy Pelosi has finally lost her mind.
I think she ate too many twinkies growing up.
*See Twinkie Defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
I remember the case very well and laughed when the TD was announced during the trial of Danny White, the idiot who shot Milk and Moscone in the late 70's.
The murders had nothing to do with any kind of 'citizen action'. If anything it should be pinned on the FHs in office, just like the goofy, off-center S of the H.
I really hope that her current health care coverage has provisions for some kind of mental health options.
wow.
Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com
Bookmarks