Davin News Server

From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Proof Liberals Have ZERO Sense of Humour
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:02:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider

On 2/20/25 12:58, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-02-19 16:57, AlleyCat wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:31:05 -0800,  Alan says...
>>
>>>> I'm sorry I doubted the sincerity from you and the severity of
>>>> your cold.
>>>>
>>>> You are still delirious. Out of literally 1000s line item
>>>> savings, you pick that bullshit?
>>>
>>> I picked the one you listed first.
>>
>> Annnd skipped all the others, because they made the one you picked
>> look small.
> 
> Nope. I just started with the first one I encounterd.
> 
>>
>>>> Pretty sure DoGE will find a way to do it cheaper. Probably some 
>>>> form of in-house resource.
>>>
>>> And how will that work?
>>
>> Figure it out yourself, idiot.
> 
> So you don't know.
> 
>>
>>> Do you think West produces their periodicals without staff?
>>
>> Where the fuck does THAT come from.
> 
>  From the fact that you can't magically make it happen for free.
> 
>>
>> So, you're gonna start making up shit again? Who said anything about
>> DoGE "cutting staff"? THAT would be up to WEST, being a contractor.
>> You ARE delirious.
> 
> I didn't say anything like that.
> 
> I'm pointing out that West provided products for value.
> 
> There is no evidence presented that there was waste in that contract.
> 
>>
>> Go back to bed, pussy.
>>
>> Only a pussy would let a fucking cold keep them from doing anything,
>> bad one or not. I guess I shouldn't be so judgmental. I haven't had
>> a cold or ANY sickness in over 20 years.
>>
>> Can DoGE cut contractor's staff?
>>
>> That's a claim. PROVE IT.
> 
> I didn't claim it.
> 
>>
>> Wait... don't bother... it's just more bullshit minutiae you're
>> going to argue, because you have nothing else.
>>
>>>> You're such a worm.
>>>
>>> You pick the next one I should critique.
>>
>> I gave you another list.
>>
>> Try the first one. LOL
>>
>> You won't, pussy.
>>
>> SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION                    $1,033,638,089
>>
>> https://www.fpds.gov/common/jsp/LaunchWebPage.jsp?
>> command=execute&requestid=239742053&version=1.5
> 
> First off, you've listed the contract value, not the savings.
> 
> The alleged "savings" are $231,864,794

Because it was a multi-year contract, ~4 years of services had already 
been provided, invoiced, & paid, making ~80% of the original contract 
value simply not cancelable for any possible savings.


> Next, the contract was for IT support for the SSA.
> 
> Do you think it doesn't NEED IT support, Phil?
> 
> Your turn now:
> 
> Show HOW THAT WAS WASTE.


<https://tinyurl.com/mvwzpkvh>


-hh