OCinBuffalo

Are you retarded? Seriously? Since when does "waste-free" = tolerate waste? Words mean things. Those words don't mean the same thing. There's no way this was going to be a waste-free thing, no different than most of my projects aren't waste-free. However, I'm not tolerant of waste, my clients sure as hell aren't. Actually, most of the time they have no idea, one way or the other. But, if there is any, we find out why, and we make damn sure it doesn't happen again. That's called: accountability. Then you don't know GM. You don't know Boeing. You don't know St.Gobain. You don't know half the major banks in this country, all past clients. See, there's 2 sides to this story: I've seen those companies, waste millions on failure, or flights of fancy, that should have gotten everyone fired. I've gotten calls on a Tuesday afternoon, with my ass on a flight and taking over these projects on Wednesday, even though our rates/expenses triples the budget, at least. There was no "oversight" from the board, nobody saying a F'ing word...other than "Welcome to Dallas, I've known Bob at Citigroup for years, and said you guys did a good job for him in NYC. Can you get the thumb out of our asses with this Oracle...stuff...hehe "? Our response for taking over their schitty, 6-months-behind project that these clowns should never have started without somebody like us in the first place? "Yes, but, F you, pay me! You're going to put us through hell for the next 6 months or so...you're going to pay for it." Now...do you think that me expensing season tickets for my entire crew down there, in 3 sports....was a "waste"? How about the stippers, the boozing, big dinners and all the rest of it? Sounds wasteful doesn't it? But, as I was walking out of their door, for the last time, luggage in tow...the pissant CIO ran down the hall and said "thanks...you guys did it". That's rare, but I bet that MFer doesn't think a single lap dance was a waste, now does he? He gets to keep his job, and my crew got some good times out of the deal. Even. On to the next giant F up.

Do you know what it cost to develop the Abrahms tank? Do you know what it cost to develop the F-18? No? You and your $35 Billion is retarded, assuming you are being a D-bag, and that # is accurate. When one considers the budgets of the 100s of programs we developed and deployed...35 B ain't schit. Now, why...do you think that a black budget is "black". Have you ever heard of "accounting"? How about "forensic accounting" Or, hell how about just plain old "cost accounting"? Do you think...that the USA, is the only world power that has...that awesome super soldier known as an: accountant? Yes, it is possible to learn that we have 10 CIA NOCs in Argentina....when we have a line item for "CIA OFFICER expenses, incidental, Southern Command, Argentina" and a $ figure. Do you know what the word "covert" means? See...this is why this conversation is hysterical, and, why I'm still in it. Actually, no, that is only true for a person who's never had to actually put his life on the line for anything, whose never even had to consider what that would mean, or feel like, whose never had to be in charge of a bunch of people's lives, have to write the letters if they die, and, to avoid the F out of that...makes damn sure that tank crew, and every other one in the command, trains, and trains, and hates them for it...to the point that they can kill 40 tanks before being taken out. But all of that, all of it, is predicated on whether that crew believes in that equipment, the training on it, and the leadership to make use of both in combat. Meanwhile, the Corps commander has to sit there, and pray, that every, dopey, 20-something CO he has, and all his NCOs are doing that job, and that the equipment he signed off on, will actually work, and not get everyone killed. Meanwhile the president is a 1000+ miles away, hoping that all of us, all the way down to platoon commander, aren't just a bunch of candy-ass, pampered buffoons with little bits of metal on our shoulders, and that we can actually make use of the equipment he has just blown a ton of money on. It's hysterical that you think this is "tangential", when it is in fact central. Are you trying for full retard? More irony: Most of the time, it is the only thing. Each point of the chain, bitches at every other constantly, and everybody holds everybody else accountable. Most of the time it's not just accountable, some bastards are looking to screw you over, so they can advance. So, usually its > accountable. But you don't know this, so you don't get this. Tangential. That's what you said. Do yourself a favor: tell yourself you're an idiot again, for saying that. Yes, I am absolutely sure that the A-10 was developed by a private company. Just as all weapons systems are. Most of the RPFs are released and bid on. Sometimes, an aviation company builds something and takes it to the government, and it's so good they jump at it. Sometimes, NASA may generate some research, or an application of that research, and that is shard with these companies, or, more likely required by the bid. If you really want to get into this, perhaps, for historical context, you should look into all the contracts that were let to Howard Hughes during WW2, how much money he got vs how many planes he put into combat, and something called the Spruce Goose, and the embarrassment for a certain Senator. Or, for even more context, you could investigate the Maginot line, or the sho-sho, or any other French abomination that was foisted upon the US Army AFTER Yorktown... ...and then compare of that the weapons systems of the Army of Reagan. Do some cost accounting work, and get back to me. Didn't say that. Your distortion of what I say is becoming tiresome. Do you think any poster, on this board, doesn't realize when you do it? What I said was: the only weapon that we 100% wasted money on...because it was intended to be all a waste...was STAR WARS. The dopey Russians...seeing us create tanks, cruisers, destroyers, fighters, one after the next, that could wipe out their "en masse" strategic advantage... ...were easily lulled into believing that STAR WARS was real. After all, if we can put a rocket engine in a tank, and not require midgets to drive it, like their tanks did...why couldn't we do that?

I never said waste-free. Now that you see the big loss coming...don't start putting words in my mouth to break your fall. Here's another hint: "running it like a business" does not = "waste free". Perhaps you should try actually working in a business, or observing one(why wouldn't an artist want to observe the real world), and then you'd see that we operate on risk vs reward. Sometimes the reward makes the risk worth it, even if it doesn't work out. Don't they do the same thing with movies? Why is this a foreign concept to a screen writer? Or...are you just being a disingenuous turd? I did say, that for every Bradley fighting vehicle...there are 50 weapons systems that were absolutely kick-ass...and cheap in terms of our cost vs. what we kill. The A-10, the Aegis missle system, the HMMVV. Again, risk vs. reward governed these programs...just as it does in business. The fact is, that the DOD is far and away the most efficient and business-like department, and has been since Reagan. And, ask DC_Tom, or me, or anyone else who has worked at the decision-making level at DOD: they waste a lot of money, but they are ACCOUNTABLE for it. They also kick a lot of ass: or have you missed every battle we have fought for the last 20 years? In contrast: HHS wastes 5x the money DOD does relative to their budget. That I know, from tons of personal experiences. I also know lawyers who work in the fraud department, and they are clear: the Federal employees are just as culpable for their losses as the fraudulent claimants. That's because those employees are UNACCOUNTABLE, and there ain't jack schit these lawyers, or anyone can do about it.

IF you have to be in a tank, and that tank has to kill 10 Russian tanks at least, for you to survive today, for your company's operation to survive, for your battalion commanders tactical plan to survive, for your Corps commander's theater plan to survive...and for your commander-in-chief's strategic plan to survive, do you think that tank can be "wasteful", "unaccountable"? Can it be inefficient in any way? Or does it have to be most fear, and awe-inspiring killing machine man has ever put on wheels? Doesn't everyone, in that entire chain, have to KNOW that to be true, in order for the strategy to work? How is that accomplished...without accountability? The only ironic thing...is that you are still in this conversation, telling yourself that you aren't an idiot. The A-10 wasn't developed by Nasa or "the military". Nor was the F-18. Nor was the Abrahms tank. Nor was anything of the weapons systems that made the case for: You can no longer just throw millions of your people away, you disgusting socialists, and win. Now, with these weapons, we can kill them all. The only thing that was made by Nasa and "the military"? STAR WARS.....and that, just like most government programs...was mostly smoke and mirrors. Irony? There you have it.

Don't confuse most poster's inability to catch Tom saying something dumb....with them being groupies. If Tom left himself open anywhere near as much as most poster's, or you, do, he'd be taking the same beating you do. Tom has written his share of idiocy, it's just that most people don't know it's idiocy, which says more about them, than Tom. Tom is also the fastest deleter in this board, and he gets real pissed when he thinks he's gotten over...but you have his deleted post all cached up and ready to go. The one thing you can count on, and dare I say is a redeeming, and even comforting, quality about the DC_Tom "brand", he rarely talks about things he doesn't know about. If you really want to be critical of DC_Tom, ask him why he doesn't start threads, or begin conversations, rather than just doing drive-bys in everybody else's. Now...I guarantee that will get you...something. Whether it is better than what you are getting? Well, as I said, that depends on you. Yeah, I went to that meeting to see if it was real.(shh don't tell DuckDodgers). That's Juror #8, when I asked him to explain the difference between Macro and Micro.

Oh ****...you are right. Jesus...that's even bigger chaos. They have to keep voting until a simple majority is achieved....but not if there isn't a 2/3rds quorum. So, if enough of the House stays home, and refuses to report for their friggin duty....we may never get a vote on it. Can you really doubt that House Democrats would hide out in their states, after all of the douchebaggery we've seen in IL, WI, etc. = running and hiding out in neighboring states, etc.?

Wrong. The House votes for Prez, Senate for VP, just like they would for a bill. So yeah, theoretically, there could be a tie in either house, and nobody to break the tie in the Senate...depending on what the word "immediately" means. The real contention: it is unclear as to which House and Senate, the existing or the newly elected, would vote...because it says "immediately". Immediately could mean: the day after the elections are certified in all 50 states, and we have a tie...not likely the day after the electors, provided they don't play games, vote...still this year...more likely the day after the votes of the electors are received and processed by the archivist...next year...most likely...since the votes are "received" until they are "received"...meaning they are opened and counted etc. Or any further idiotic legal constructs created by whichever side benefits by them. EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget the biggest, hell on earth, feature of this? If they can't figure it out, and somehow the Ds take back the house? Nancy Pelosi would be the interim POTUS...until they did figure it out. Now, if there ever was a reason for those of you in a swing state go out and vote...

I think this website may have a data caching problem, especially with its generated urls, but am entirely too lazy to test it. Yes, I've seen combinations that can bring about the Crapocalypse.... ...what happens if the House and Senate stay as is? We would then end up with President Romney, and, VP Biden? Hilarity ensues. Even worse...what if a single elector changes their vote...on the "second Wednesday" or whatever it is...and you thought 2000 was a shitshow? The worst part: these ties are every bit as plausible as anything else.

How about this: http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FSc As the 5th ring of hell? FL OH CO go Romney, but NV VA NH do not? Edit: under this, NH is THE swing state. And, I say it goes Romney before IA...which, if it went that way, would still mean Obama by 2. But again, I think both IA and NH go Romney. These people are the most politically tuned in people in the country. I am pretty sure they'd rather get results....from a "liar".

Yep. You continue to bathe in your ignorance, because you refuse to do the reading. But don't fret. I have some reading for you here. Read and learn: Do you think that the answer to 50 armored divisions lined up on the Russian border, and more infantry and artillery than God...was merely spending more $ on 5(five) US divisions...and whatever Germany and France could field(4 veteran, combat-ready divisions..if we were lucky)? You think the answer to 9 divisions vs. 50 was simply: throw money at it? Do you think the answer wasn't: Communism can't support those divisions longer than 1 month in the field, against our vast array of new, superior weapons, because Communism is a bad idea? Do you think the message wasn't as simple as: "Capitalism and Freedom = technology, and Socialism = Stone Age, and we can prove it? We'll show you how bad it sucks: We are going to make Communism fail, because we are going to stress it beyond it's meager breaking point, and deploy our new, not wasteful, weapons systems all over the world, while at the same time, appeal culturally, and morally, in every venue that will allow us to speak, and even the ones that won't. We will expose, and then take away the immoral socialist strategy, not tactic, of 'throw bodies at it'(see WW2, Korea, Vietnam) because we will convince them that we can kill more bodies than they can throw, and we will be morally justified in doing so". Which answer, do you think, convinced the world, and ultimately, the Russians themselves? You think $, and not demonstrating our resolve, superior political system, and superior military leadership, and morality...was the strategy? hehehehehe...so ignorant. You don't even know what you don't know. Example: What was the role of the A-10 vs. the role of the Apache? How wasteful, has either weapons system been? What was the relative cost of either, both in terms of convincing the Russians that they could not win, and, the object lesson about Capitalism Vs. Communism both embodied? Ask an Iraqi, if you can find one that isn't in tiny pieces, what it was like to be attacked by a 30-year-old weapons system, but with upgraded technology, in the A-10, for which they had no answer. The A-10, is the best example of why you are completely wrong. So are scores of other not-wasteful Reagan, or Reagan-upgraded, systems I can rattle off, and you can't. Do you know the $ ratio of tanks destroyed vs cost of 1 upgraded A-10? No. You don't, and that's why you're wrong. It's perhaps the most efficient/effective weapon we've ever had in the field, all time. The truth, and what you should be arguing: We actually made weapons that were better than we needed, because we overestimated the ability of socialism to make weapons. Our intelligence people were still thinking in terms of hordes of T-34s, and not about fiber optics. We should have known: socialism/Communism sucks all day, every day. But, our paranoia = the M1A1 Abrahms tank, which, as we saw in the Gulf, has a 30-1 kill ratio. Even if the Russians themselves were driving them, it would still be 10-1, and that's if they could keep them working in combat conditions for longer than a week. That, Tgreg, you simple, simple, man...is how you beat 50 Russian divisions...with 5. Do you want to be riding in a tank....that was "wastefully" put together, when you know you have to kill at least 10 baddies to survive today? You're wrong, because it was all overkill, if we are to be objective about it. The Reagan weapons systems not only weren't wasteful, they were far and away more efficient and effective than we needed, and therefore more expensive, than we needed. Such a shame, when I can argue against myself better than you, and you can't even conceive of either argument. EDIT: The real downside to these weapons? They've made people, in both political parties, think we can't, won't, or shouldn't lose soldiers in war, and that if we do, even if the kill ration is 100-1, that means we aren't winning. This is ludicrous. But again, what was the strategy, and what was the tactic? Do you even know the difference between them yet? Or, are you content, as is your candidate, to just have your national security thinking printed out for you, so that you can peruse it for 5 minutes, and then get back to your golf game?

This thread should be taken for the humor...that it so obviously is. Just couldn't resist the 9th coincidence thing.

In what world does UTAH go to Obama? May want to try this one again. Anyway, no way IA and NH both go to Obama. I might be willing to listen to IA, but no way NH. VA? You are smoking crack. The "coal state" thing will take care of VA, and it may even lead to OH. I still don't think PA will be gained by it. The rest...are swing states...and Rassmussen has leads for Romney in all as of today. My problem with that Rassmussen poll, since I don't expect anyone else to actually argue this, and want to tell me that "you just agree with the polls cause Romney is winning" instead, is that I don't know how you can reflect such massive change in a 7 day tracking poll. The average of the other days' numbers, including 3 days of prior-debate data, would suggest a more moderate gain, not 4 and 5, or in some cases 7 point swings.

A +8 D turnout...to a 0 turnout. That's a clear change in raw data if I ever saw one. How the F do you explain that, if it's not a method change? Or, do you agree with me that its most likely a reflection of enthusiasm in terms of willingness to answer the phone, in which case the earlier polls told us nothing? Or, do you really think, that 7-13% of people just up and changed their party ID? If that is true, then the party ID MOE is wrong. It has to be more like 10. Seriously. No, usual, typical, annoying, trolling, OCinBuffalo buffoonery here: I want to know how you explain this? George Orwell said "To see what's in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" What do these numbers, which I have now put in front of your nose, tell you? Are you going to struggle...at all?

Riiiiiichard! How about this map? http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=FQC If Rassmussen's new swing state poll is to be believed, then, there you go...with some mods. (I gave WI to Romney because of Ryan, and NH and IA because those people aren't idiots, and they are keenly aware of politics. I kept MI for Obama because of the auto bailout thingy, and PA to Obama, because even though I believe in the "Coal State" strategy, and there's ample evidence to support that belief, I still think there are too many people in the Philly area who won't admit they are wrong, about anything. Lots of people who booed drafting McNabb, and refused to admit they were wrong. I also gave Ohio to Obama...just for fun, and because I've spent a lot of time there too. They are loyal, and the auto bailout helped them, but down-ticket will be all R.)

I wonder...now that Rassmussen is the only tracking poll that doesn't have Romney winning(tied), if we can also abandon the "Rassmussen is a liar" thing as well? Probably not. If the fact that he has been the most accurate for the last 3 elections, as was recognized by Slate Magazine, of all people, doesn't get through? Nothing will.

The day that Romeny passed Obama in the RCP average: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html The day that all the OWS Guy Fawkes masks are buried in the bottom of their owner's disgusting closets, under the "Kyoto is the Minimum" t-shirts, half-eaten pizza, and broken bongs...never to return. Not even Servpro would dare approach, because there is no "like it never even happened" to be found in this place. There is only the smell of body odor and rancid pizza, mixed with pachtouli oil, desperation, and the recognition of hubris. It smells like slow death in there. The Obama poster on the wall stares back mockingly, as if to say "Yeah, and you believed it, didn't you? Moron". There is no hope, and no change, except the change that is scrounged together to buy that pack of Parliaments. But there is hope, real hope: the mask will sit there for years, and one day, it will be found. When it is, hopefully, it serves as a reminder of the days when they didn't think for themselves, and a celebration of their lives, now that they do.

Feel the sarcasm B-man. I'm laying it on pretty thick.

So now that Romney is showing some positive movement, the polls are accurate? It is so hard to keep up with this stuff! What difference should we expect between this sample, and one that has 8 pts more Ds in it, do you think? Come now Buftex, you are a reasonable person. Don't try to be coy with us.

4 point lead for Romney with a 2.9 MOE. Here you go: http://www.people-pr...cal Release.pdf The 2nd number above is the MOE for each sample. Now, do I still have a tin foil hat, or, have events, once again, overtaken those who said I was wrong? See? It's always just a matter of time...and properly collected data. The lamest possible excuse I've heard on this so far: "But...but...but...more people ID with the winner when he's winning." All that clown has to do is spend 1 day reading this board, to know that people don't just change their party ID on a whim, or a debate ass-whipping. Any of you Democrats feeling less Democratic today? Any Republicans feeling less Republican? Does Ron Paul suck now? No. No. and No. Not for any of you. Does the candidate your party has put forward change what you believe...or...does what you believe guide which candidate you supported in their primary? Perhaps we should ask PastaJoe if he is now IDing as an R...because Hillary didn't win? Or, because Obama lost the debate? The excuse they should be going with: when one party improves, those that ID with them are more likely to pick up the phone, and not let the pollster's call go to VM. That is at least reasonable, but I've never seen any data to back it up. That would explain why the problem polls had D+8 samples in a D+2, at best, year. Those polls were merely telling us that Obama supporters support: Obama. Thanks. We didn't know that. (EDIT: Oops. It also told us that since Obama rarely if ever broke 50%...that it was possible that they didn't support Obama anywhere near as much as Rs support Romney) The excuse they are going with: People are going to change party ID because of one debate, is preposterous. Then, there is the women thing: in this poll they are now 47/47...down from 56/38? I find that hard to believe, but women in politics, and women in general, is a whole different thread.

Max, and whoever else thinks the "green" thing is a worthy idea: The problem here has not been the motive, once again, the problem has been the methods. And, once again, when reasonable people identify problems with the methods, the usual assclowns call them evil, and say they hate the motive. Why is it so hard to stick to a discussion of the methods? What is this need to turn everything into a character assassination? What does talk radio have to do awful methods/execution? What does it have to do with the obvious corruption here? If talk radio didn't exist...would that mean Solyndra wouldn't have failed? However, if Al Gore didn't exist, or the rest of the scumbags involved, the green agenda would not being set back as far as it has been, and there's a good chance that a few venture capital companies would have put out a few reasonable products by now. Just for fun, do you want me to call up the VCs or investment bankers I know, and see if any will even consider "green" company? Notice anything about this election vs. last one? "Green" is now a political liability. No debate questions about "Global Warming" are there? That's because, for far too many people, "green" was never the motive, and was actually a method. That cat is out of the bag. How? Some of the people who are telling you that they are green...are actually red. Green is merely a convenient way of taking yet another shot at getting their awful socialist ideas implemented. They couldn't care less if we all had to ride tricycles, or were driving SUVs, as long as their agenda is advanced. Meanwhile, you are left asking where the F is your green car? Get in line. You'll get your green car, right after I get my flying one. The VCs will tell both of us to get lost...until we can bring them a viable set of methods, and a business plan that actually has a chance of earning enough, never mind staying alive, long enough to be sold.

"We always knew, didn't we? We just didn't want to picture it, and now here's the picture" "Bill Clinton's women problem. Cause...or effect?"

Chefy Chef and the Funky Bunch? Chef's 11? The Chefy Dozen?

Here's my preview: When: 11 OCT, 9-10:30 PM EST Where: Danville, Ky Media: all major channels and cable news channels, pbs, etc. as well as various live streams. Moderator: Martha Raddatz(ABC) Format: 8-9 segments, beginning with a question from the moderator, a 2 minute response from each candidate, with the remaining time being used by the moderator to discuss the question further. (For me...much depends on the execution here. If Ryan is being cut off, it hurts him, if Biden is being cut off it helps ) Expectations for Joe Biden couldn't be lower. Every single pundit, on multiple outlets, has Ryan winning. This has gotten to the point that they are covering their predictions by calling this this a "trap game" for Ryan. Almost all have cautioned that Biden can be underestimated, and that he does have a unique ability to connect with the working class. For Ryan, given the expectations, it's hard to see how anything other than a flawless victory over Biden will be called a win. In fact, even if Ryan beats Biden on points, or rounds, as if this were boxing, only a KO, and not even a TKO, will be called a net + for Obama. But, the scoreboard is the American people, and not what the pundits say. The game's winner is determined on that scoreboard. Biden has been sequestered, and is hiding out at Debate Camp. No doubt this tactic is being employed...both to prepare Biden for the onslaught that is Ryan...and to keep Biden from repeating last week's 2-gaffe performance. It remains to be seen whether Ryan needs any preparation, or if he plans to simply go into the debate doing what he does every other day. However, Ryan himself has said that he will not underestimate Biden, and is preparing vigorously. My Prediction: Frankly, I didn't buy Ryan's line, or the Biden stuff either. Ryan has already demonstrated, especially in the health care "round table" leading up to the passage of Obamacare, that he is a highly skilled extemporaneous speaker. If he gives Biden the same whipping he gave Obama in that meeting, and there's no indication that he can't, he should cruise to the win. The only thing that can stop Ryan: if he doesn't recognize when to be gracious, and cognizant that he is running for VP, and not looking for a job on a news channel. If he appears to be beating on an a helpless old man, who just wants to help people, it could hurt him. For Biden, it will also take massive discipline not lash out wildly, and open himself to further attack, especially when Ryan begins to land his punches. Expecting this discipline from Biden, when he has rarely if ever shown it, especially when speaking in an open format, approaches wishful thinking. Also, many forget that Biden was soundly beaten...by Sarah Palin. It's an inconvenient fact that might just push the liberal reader into a panic attack this week, if they are able to recall it correctly. Regardless, the media will call this a win for Biden, no matter what happens. They have to, and, given their "polls" and predictions that the race was over 2 weeks ago, it's not like they have their credibility to preserve. The last shred of that was lost the minute they bought that a youtube video killed our ambassador. Odds: Ryan -7 on points made Biden -2 on mistakes made Ryan -3 on openings in opponent's response taken Biden -2 on " missed 5/3 # of times pundits say Ryan "lied"/ # times they say Biden messed up

Let's use the same logic that liberals use for why it's ok to bash Republicans for sex scandals, but not Democrats: There is a double standard, and there should be, because Republican's talk about family values, etc. Well then, there is a double standard for liberals like you, for the same reason IF you say anything at all that could even be remotely interpreted as homophobic, you get bashed and no one else does. What? Don't like your own logic, especially when it is applied to you? Or...is it far past time we all recognize that this logic...isn't? I assure you, this place would be no fun for us...if it wasn't for unmitigated morons saying stupid things every day. Why on earth would we ever want to keep them from it? Please, by all means, keep telling us that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, or that you can roll 3.5 on a die, or that "The Surge isn't going to work", or that "People will eventually like Obamacare, you'll see"(hell this one will never die. 20 years from now, when 70% of the country still hates Obamacare, you can still say they will like it, in the "future" Or, there will be some revisionist history saying that we didn't hate it...it's just that it wasn't communicated properly) . My favorite: Obama's clear overreach...won't mean massive defeat in 2010, because the country is now 50% liberal. :woot: If Obama loses, I can't wait to hear that it's because the country is racist. We'd be nowhere without the usual morons entertaining us with their delusions, and their histrionics, when their delusions are overtaken by events.

3rd time: Reagan, prior to embarking on a huge military buildup called all senior flag officers, literally on the carpet, and told them waste would not be tolerated. Where's the "wiggle"? This is a matter of historical fact. What is also a matter of historical fact: anybody who broke with that was RIFfed. Now, in the face of these historical, matters of public record(take the hint, moron), you are arguing what exactly? That they don't exist? Oversight, was the responsibility of the House Democrats...who were in charge at the time. Are you saying that they don't deserve any credit...and that they were fighting Reagan on this the whole way? Tip O'Neill, and Charlie Wilson for that matter, were the guys who went along with, and in some cases lead, parts of Reagan's strategy. No. The only people who were fighting it, were the Joe Bidens and the John Kerrys(check the record...do some of your own work for Christ's sake)....who were put outside and ignored, like I said. So, where in the world...are you getting that this was somehow, some unaccountable thing? The whole point of the plan was to make every part of it highly effective, and that the sum of the parts would drive the hell out of the whole....thus making the USSR's argument to the rest of the world untenable, and, to take away their time tested military strategy....by demonstrating that we had weapons that would make it ineffective. Every piece of the plan had to be accountable, or the whole thing wouldn't work. The real marvel here is that, given the government's track record for getting things done, it worked at all. The only way. The ONLY WAY it worked, is because a whole lot of people agreed to trust each other, and work together, and if there was mass fraud waste and abuse, it would have died in the first year. Again, you don't understand the strategy, partially due to your misconception that one tactic is the strategy, and partially due to your lack of understanding of the history of these events, or the 286 years of history leading up to them. There's a starting point for you: why 286? Reagan's plan began in earnest in 1984...what happened in 1698?