I don't know what to tell you. We were required to be masked all day everywhere in the building. The cleanroom requires additional PPE (booties, coats, gloves) but these are always in use and intended to protect from "shedding" human particulate (hair, dead skin, etc.) onto work surfaces and/or product. Nobody wants elevated levels of bioburden on their product. Anyways, we never ran out. Not once!

I thought you were in sales and marketing?

How are prices set? By supply and demand?

Biden pulled how many millions of gallons from our reserves? Canceled permits to drill and get some more? Shut down pipelines? These all seem like things that would reduce supply and therefore increase prices. But hey, I'm just a stupid engineer.

Then you have a short memory. It's understandable given the large number of geriatrics that hang out here.

Mayor Pete was appointed Transportation Secretary for the Biden Administration. As the country was coming out of the COVID lockdowns and moving products and services became a priority good ole Pete adopted a child where he had to stay home from his job. Meanwhile in the port of LA ships are backing up 10's of miles out to sea waiting to unload their cargo. We heard all about "supply chain" for months on end all while Pete was phoning it in. Then of course there were the train derailments, fuel issues for truckers and everybody else due to the Biden energy policies.

I was working at a medical device manufacturer for a number of products and we could not get alcohol. No not booze, the alcohol that is used nationwide to clean surfaces, devices, tooling, etc. throughout the manufacturing process for medical devices. Understandably, hospitals were the priority. This happened to an entire industry due to the ineptitude of the Biden administration and in particular to Mr. Buttigieg.

So were they worse under Biden? You're GD right they were! and that was just one thing.

Well seeing as how Congress is the ultimate Insider Trading location, I'd be surprised if any of them came out poorer. Do those same perks apply to the White House? The Supreme Court? The Swamp?

They definitely don't apply to the general electorate.

Wow! Again you fail to see what the Founders left us. After fighting the Revolutionary War for eight years (official fighting ends in 1783), the Founding Fathers gather to work out the documents and structure of the government for this new nation.

Included with that is a document titled The Bill of Rights. The first of these rights lays down what they had been fighting for, namely freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition the government.

Fighting this long war also meant they understood the cost to attain such freedom. This is why they created the second amendment and why it is featured where it is in the list. It is that important. They left us with the freedom to revolt against an oppressive government and the means to do it, at least in terms relevant to their time.

So yes, the Founding Fathers placed in our Constitution the means to the People to have another Revolution.

"Critical" or "The Most Sacred"?
Make up your mind there chief!

I mean don't get me wrong. You effed up and are vainly trying to rebound and recover but you'll need to choose your words more carefully.

An alternative is to remain silent and thought a fool instead of speaking (posting) and removing all doubt. The choice is yours.

In which direction?

Perhaps. But I'm sure that we can agree that many will cry for unified sacrifice but few will. Mostly because the don't want to "walk the walk".

Who's on first?

You know, at one point the Earth was warm enough that there was no ice. At another time it was all ice (see snowball earth). Amazingly enough we human beings had nothing to do with either case.

Big Mike? I don't think America is ready for that kind of transition.

GOP California Senate Candidate Scorches Schiff in Debate: 'Sir, You Lied to 300 Million People'
C. Douglas Golden, Western Journal
6–7 minutes
Commentary

Thanks to California’s so-called jungle primary system, the race for the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat is now for second place.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, he of the Russiagate hoax, is seen as having a comfortable lead in first place, according to CBS News.

The question is whether another Democrat will join him on the ballot in November — liberal-but-not-crazy Rep. Katie Porter and progressive-crazy-as-all-heck Rep. Barbara Lee are vying for that position — or whether the lone Republican with a chance, former baseball star Steve Garvey, will end up facing Schiff.

Polling shows Garvey and Porter in a neck-and-neck fight for second — and, in the first debate for the hotly contested seat on Monday night at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, the Democrats turned their fire on Garvey.

However, in what may have been the moment of the night, the Republican reminded all of California why Schiff shouldn’t be on the ballot at all.

In a testy exchange regarding the congressman’s censure for fibbing about Russian collusion, Garvey noted that Schiff, long the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee before he was booted off by Republican leadership last year, consistently lied to America about chimerical collusion between Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign.

“I think you’ve been censured for lying,” he said to Schiff in the midst of an exchange about the Democratic agenda and the fact the left’s candidates often have “prearranged words to say.”

After the answer, an incensed Schiff demanded to answer being “called a liar by Mr. Garvey.” This probably wasn’t the best move.

“Mr. Garvey, I was censured for standing up to a corrupt president,” he said, in full standing-on-soapbox mode.

Should Adam Schiff have been censured?

“And do you know something? I would do it all over again. Because that corrupt president, that president who’s been indicted with … 91 felony counts, that president that you won’t refuse to support — yeah, he’s a danger, and I will stand up to him and Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan and any of those MAGA enablers of his in the Congress,” Schiff said, referring to the former House speaker and the Judiciary Committee chairman.

“The reason why our democracy is in trouble is because folks don’t have the courage to stand up when they need to,” he concluded.

Garvey, however, got in the last word and reminded America why Schiff was really censured.

“Sir, you lied to 300 million people,” he said. “You can’t take that back.”



Keep in mind that Garvey is no “MAGA enabler,” as Schiff likes to call them. In fact, much of the debate centered on the fact that the former Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres first baseman has refused to say whether he would support Trump if he were the nominee.

But he was deadly accurate: Schiff’s censure was the result of a profile in cowardice, not courage.

Schiff, as you may recall, was one of the biggest peddlers of the Russiagate hoax from his congressional soapbox on the House Intelligence Committee. Specifically, he was censured for a March 20, 2017, hearing involving then-FBI Director James Comey.

As The New York Times described it contemporaneously, Schiff “carefully laid out the history of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials. It was a performance that showed how an avalanche of information can leverage the limited power of the minority party to damage a president.”

It was also all complete hokum, considering it was well-known in intelligence circles at the time that the information in the Steele dossier — which the Russiagate hoax was based on — was false, unverified or unverifiable.

“On March 20, 2017, Representative Schiff perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record,” read the censure resolution, introduced last June by Florida GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.

“As ranking minority member and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Schiff behaved dishonestly and dishonorably on many other occasions, including by publicly, falsely denying that his staff communicated with a whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of President Trump,” the resolution continued.

Thus, Schiff became the third representative in the 21st century — Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona and former Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York being the others — to be censured by the House of Representatives.

However, the Democrats pitched a mighty fit over this — and it’s worth pointing out, too, that both of the other challengers on stage Monday night, Porter and Lee, defended Schiff’s lies as well.

Now, liars get elected all the time. It’s rare, in fact, when someone who isn’t a fibber makes it into high office.

However, there’s a mighty difference between fibbing about budgetary numbers or what you can get done while in office, say, and lying about links between the president of the United States and the Kremlin that don’t exist.

That was a poisonous lie that Schiff loosed upon 300 million Americans, many of whom still believe it. It was divisive, destabilizing and designed to be that way. And not only did Schiff utter it, but Porter and Lee supported it.

Even in lefty California, you’d hope that kind of mendacity would count for something. We’ll see if it does when voters go to the polls in March.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

https://ijr.com/gop-california-senate-candidate-scorches-schiff-debate-sir-lied-300-million-people/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ijr-newsletter&utm_campaign=daily&utm_content=firefly

Are you high?

The most sacred American value are the freedoms we enjoy and are detailed in the Bill of Rights! And exactly how did we get that? Through violence you nitwit!

1635

I don't care. I really don't. She's a crook just like the rest of them.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/11/records-liz-cheneys-net-worth-ballooned-much-600-percent-during-her-time-office/

Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WY) net worth ballooned from an estimated $7 million when she first took office in 2017 to possibly more than $44 million in 2020, according to analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics and her most recent financial disclosure forms.

She obviously didn't say no to money,,,

She was either very smart (lol), very lucky (seriously?) or a crook (read between |***YES***| the lines).

Romney made his hundreds of millions selling American manufacturing companies to China. He's a sellout.

What has ms Cheney done besides be related to Dick?

Mickey is trans or they/them these days which means Joe should worry...