I failed to erase the news from one day, because I had watched the
program live, so I accidentally replayed it today. During his long
press conference He said that once they/she/? lied, there was no need to
get to the underlying issue. This is the way criminal prosecutors and
others 3rd parties often work, but not when it's an administrator
dealing with his own aide. I would want to know why she did what she
did, so I could be a better supervisor, and for curiosilty toor. Was
she trying to screw up his chances to be president? She could have
gone to the White House with him, but I don't think that can happen now.
Same with the Port Authority guy, Barrici?, and the others who are
fired. And what good is screwing with Fort Lee if you don't come out
and tell the mayor of Fort Lee why you did it? Did they think the
voters would blame him, when the orders came from the Port Authority?
BTW, speaking of supervision and knowing or not knowing, I heard today
on C-Span that Oliver North, in a book written after Reagan was no
longer president, said that Reagan knew all about Iran-Contra from the
beginning. All about Iran and all about Contra, despite what Reagan
said. Why didn't this affect his image? The radio guy said because the
image was already set in people's minds by the time the book was
published, and it's hard to change it after that. I never even head
this before, but I wish my late step-father had heard it. He thought
Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate. I don't remember if he said what
he thought Reagan's role in it was.
Christie said he wanted to know what he had done wrong that would make
one think it is all right to lie to him, but he didn't say he wanted to
konw what he had done wrong that would make her think it was all right
to stall traffic in Fort Lee.
Yes, he said bad things about causing the traffic problem in Fort Lee,
but there were opportunities to say more when all he did is complain
that she(more than she?) had lied to him. And that's why some were
saying that he thinks he's the center of the story.
That is why Christie fired her. Not why she did it'. BobF said he
didn't ask why she did it, not why he fired her. Who are you saying
making something up? What?
I would too if they were lying to me. But lying, even to save one's
skin, I understand. What is worse is tying up traffic because of
Watch, I wouldn't hire her to sweep floors but she'll end up with a good
job working for the NJ or national Republican Party.
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:20:01 AM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
There are traffic backups, delays on highways, bridges, every day.
It's typical at rush hour to have delays of 45 mins or more many
days on accesses into and out of NYC.
They are not unusual. I don't find it unusual that Christie wasn't
aware of it at the time. It would have been on the traffic reports
on radio, not the front page of newspapers. And even if he glanced
at it, why would he have any reason to think that something was
drastically wrong, that it wasn't a typical delay caused by normal
events. AFAIK, at the time, Mayor Sokolich didn't call Christie,
which he could have. He called the Port Authority.
Same here. His comments on why he was obese sort of won my heart.
But I keep coming back to the idea that, at that level of politics and
above there are very few of what most of us would call "nice people".
The demands of the position mitigate against it.
Having to decide between alternatives like "10,000 innocent people die
if I do this, and 14,000 innocent people die if I do that... and there
are no other options." would, I think, drive a "nice person" over the
edge pretty quickly.
The pundits I've heard so far think he is handling this about as well as
something like this can be handled - and he *is* getting national
exposure from it. So maybe it's not over for him yet.
Christie said he took responsibility. So much for that....talk is
cheap. Apparently problems in the Port Authority don't filter up to the
governor....did all the SMART people at the PA die on 9/11? Christie
can claim all he wants that he had no knowledge of the situation; put
him in the White House, then tell me how it will work. "Oh, I didn't
know Benghazi was a dangerous place."???? "Oh, nobody told me that
Pakistan had nukes"??
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:09:10 PM UTC-5, NorMinn wrote:
It's not just talk. The two PA officials have resigned and are under
criminal investigation. He FIRED his deputy chief of staff. He told
his former campaign manager, who was about to become GOP chair in NJ
to get lost. That is ACTION.
Apparently problems in the Port Authority don't filter up to the
We've already seen that with both Obama and Hillary, that in fact,
they didn't provide adequate security and either didn't know Benghazi was
a dangerous place or didn't care. That's fact, not speculation.
So, you can speculate about Christi and Benghazi, but we
know it's a fact with the president and the leading Dem candidate.
Oh, and BTW, where is the press conference where Obama takes
questions for two hours on Benghazi? He won't even answer as to
what he did in the hours from 5PM when he first was informed of
the terrorist attack on Benghazi, until 8 hours later, when the
4 Americans were dead. And you want to bring up Benghazi?
"Oh, nobody told me that
Where is your outrage over Fast and Furious?
Benghazi, where 4 Americans died.
Who got fired by Obama or anyone else in those instances?
Not a one. The idiots in the state dept that were responsible
for providing appropriate security in Benghazi got 6 months off
with full pay, and now have their jobs back. The one moron most
responsible, actually testified to Congress that she believes
that the security in Benghazi was appropriate for the conditions
at the time. Really? And all those scandals have been going
on for anywhere from several years to 9 months. The Christie
thing has only been going on for just a few months and already
he's taken decisive action. Obama, nada.
See the difference? Where is your outrage about all of the
On 01/11/2014 01:33 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Don't be so naive! These clowns protect each other.
When the dust settles, these guys will all have nice cushy middle 6-figure government jobs...especially the ones that keep quiet and take the fall for the big cheeseball.
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:43:39 PM UTC-5, Harley J. wrote:
Pure speculation. What is fact is that 3 people are no longer in govt
jobs, 1 isn't getting to head the GOP, Christie directly fired his
deputy chief of staff. He also condemned all of the above, what they
did, etc. If it all works the same, where is the similar action for:
Fast and Furious?
Name one person there that was fired by Obama or lost their job? The only
one who left was Lerner, who took the fifth and retired on pension. Others
in those scandals got 6 months off with full pay, and then returned to
There is a difference.
Also if you followed NJ politics, you'd know that there is a long
list of mayors, councilmen, senators, and other officials caught up in scandal
over the last decade who resigned, were prosecuted, and are *not* in
govt jobs today. Here is a partial list. Show us one of these guys who's
in a cushy govt 6 figure job today:
Nice try at moral equivalency and re-direction, but it won't fly.
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 2:38:50 PM UTC-5, Uncle Buck wrote:
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and learn the facts. While US Attorney, Christie
prosecuted over a hundred corrupt NJ politicians of both parties. Mayors, councilmen, state senators, etc. And he won convictions against almost all of
Because everyone but Fox and Trader seem to know those were manufactured
scandals unlike Bridgegate. It's funny to watch both of them work the other
side of the scandal fence now that one of their "heroes" is on the firing
After months of digging all that was revealed was that the Fox news source
on Benghazi was a liar, the IRS targeted left AND right groups and that Fast
and Furious was a program started under Bush. Very hard to make those
"scandals" gain any traction and they haven't except for the Tea Partiers
whom establishment Republicans are now working hard to expel from the party.
None of these manufactured scandals were able to stop Obama from being
re-elected, no matter how hard Fox beat the drums. A new book about Fox
chairman Roger Ailes says that he tried very hard to use the (alleged) "fair
and balanced" Fox News to squash Obama and elect Romney. When a news
organization has to put "Fair and Balanced" on their home page banner, you
can pretty much be assured that they are neither.
<<At the beginning of the general election, a four-minute video criticizing
President Obama's policies was broadcast on "Fox and Friends," provoking
outrage from the left and prompting the network to say publicly that Mr.
Ailes had no involvement in its creation. In "The Loudest Voice in the
Room," Mr. Sherman writes that the video "was Ailes's brainchild."
In the Fox & Friends video -- which was essentially a four-minute anti-Obama
attack ad -- loud, ominous music is played along with graphics that intend
to show the supposed broken promises of the Obama administration since 2008.
Following negative backlash to the video, it was scrubbed from Fox websites
and Fox executives dodged any direct responsibility for it. A spokesperson
for the network said that Fox News president Roger Ailes "was not aware of
the video," and Bill Shine, Fox executive vice president of programming,
claimed that the video "was not authorized at the senior executive level of
These latest revelations perhaps give more insight into why Fox News and its
hosts and contributors have been working for more than a year to attack the
credibility of Sherman and his book. >>
Ailes sounds just like Christie with his rather unbelievable denials that
imply either he did it and is covering up or he was too stupid a leader to
know what his staff was doing.
I am sure there was a deal struck along the lines of "$250K hush money if
you quit, Ms. Kelly, but $500K if you let Christie "fire" you so he can look
tough." Maybe even "$750K if you agree to take ALL the blame for him and
insist he had nothing to do with it."
fall for the big cheeseball.
Based on decades of history. "Take the fall for your boss and we'll take
care of you" is a political paradigm apparently well-known to everyone in
the world but you. Remember, Christie has been denying this was anything
but a traffic study for months. When he couldn't continue that denial in
the face of mounting evidence, he began throwing underlings under the bus in
an effort to save his own skin. Just like Nixon tried to do with the
Watergate burglars. Didn't work out so well for Nixon, did it? Probably
won't work for Christie, either.
There's always the danger that if Christie doesn't take care of the "bus
fodder" well enough, it could be that one of them had a pocket tape recorder
going to make sure they don't get stuck with all the blame. Remember all
the trouble Linda Tripp's recordings made for Bill Clinton, who also denied,
denied, denied? It's going to be an interesting, gut-wrenching time from
Gov. Christie. It could very well be that his presidential aspiration got
run over on the GW bridge.
What's obvious is that Christie either directed the revenge closing or was
so out of touch with his staff that he let them run wild without
supervision. Then he failed miserably to get at the truth until he was
cornered like a rat by the facts. Neither interpretation bodes well for his
political future or his ability to lead.
You're falsely assuming a lot. Let's see why.
A program begun under George Bush. Did anyone do anything based on taking
revenge against a political rival or was it just a sad, unfortunate mistake
resulting from a policy developed under a previous administration? My vote
is sad mistake. Apparently nearly everyone else feels the same way except
Tea Party conspiracy theorists and Fox. The Feds were trying to stem the
rising tide of drug killings in Mexico, not take revenge on rivals by
inconveniencing citizens. That's an important difference you seem to have
glossed over. Others haven't.
The State Dept. was forced to protect nearly 300 embassies and consulates
all over the world on the anniversary of 9/11 with a budget that was
severely constrained by - you guessed it - Republican funding cuts and
sequester games. This continued Benghazi bashing nonsense is a little like
a bully punching someone in the nose and then berating them for bleeding on
Do you know how many people died in US embassies and consulates under George
Bush? If not, educate yourself. The death toll dwarfs Benghazi.
Where's your righteous indignation over them? Don't bother answering. It's
clear that people you *like* can do no wrong and people you *don't like* can
do no right. Facts don't matter much in that sort of calculus.
What scandal? Another big Fox-fueled fizzle. I'm all for the IRS denying
tax-free status to ANY political organization that doesn't meet the
eligibility requirements, left or right. Any sane taxpayer should be. And
despite the right's continued feigned deafness, both right and left groups
were investigated for being shams - lobbying groups disguised as
"educational" ones. No one got fired because no one did anything vengeful.
They did what they were supposed to do. I applaud Obama for not throwing
people under the bus to save his own skin just because "unfair and
unbalanced" Fox News declared them guilty.
You're definitely quite challenged when it comes to discovering "which of
these things is not like the other?" Jamming up traffic on the GWB is
malicious. It wasn't an attempt to do good gone bad. It was bad from the
start. Malice is an important concept in the law. If it's found, courts
can award punitive damages because of the evil intent. That's the big
difference in the false equivalences you're trying to sell us with your
repeated regurgitation of all of Obama's alleged sins. The bridge closings
were malice per se.
What Bridgegate has revealed is that Christie has a long, rich history of
being a payback-oriented bully. I can see why he appeals to you so much.
Birds of a feather.
Yes, there is. It's one you apparently can't see. Malice. Did you whine as
much about the 241 Marines that got killed when your Saint Reagan was
president/Commander in Chief as you do the four deaths in Benghazi? Of
course not. You liked Reagan, so he could do no wrong. Did you whine when
he pulled out of Lebanon shortly after that massacre like a scared little
girl? Hell no, he was your hero. Ptui! There are still a lot of jarheads
who have never forgiven him:
<<U.S. forces set up camp at Beirut International Airport, a spot difficult
to defend because the airport remained open for business and because warring
factions controlled strategic hillsides nearby. "It was selected almost
entirely for diplomatic and political reasons," Geraghty said. "I was uneasy
from Day One that we were in that position." The explosion and fireball
pulverized the concrete fortress, killing 241 U.S. service members, most of
them Marines. A second blast minutes later at the compound of the French
peacekeeping force killed 58 more Western troops. Three months later,
President Ronald Reagan pulled the Americans out of Beirut. "We invested all
this time and money and sweat and blood, and then we just leave," Ciokon
said. "Why did we give these lives?" >>
Reagan's poor planning and political posturing caused hundreds to die and
then, dishonoring their sacrifice, he turned tail and ran. What a hero!!!
When you start using the same standards to judge right and left, Chet, you
might find some traction with your claims. But not today. Today you're
still the "in the bag" partisan hack you've always been. You're blind to
the failings of the right, chosing to blame "liberal loons" for the
incredibly long laundry list of things in America that just aren't to your
liking. Too bad, soooo sad. Didn't your mother ever teach you "it takes
two to tango?"
(There is, admittedly, an ironic statisfaction watching you try (not very
effectively) to defend Christie from the same kinds of attacks you've been
making against Obama for years. There's an important difference, though.
Christie's malicious acts deserve attack because there was ill-intent meant
from the beginning. Where's the malice in Benghazi? The chickens have come
home to roost.)
How did you escape the kill file, Oren? I see, Bob F let you in. Shame on
you Bob! (-:
Wow, Oren, either your reading comprehension or your memory is faulty.
Probably both. I never said *anything* of the sort. You are delusional or
malicious or both.
Channeling Gov C? Did you take any hits to the head in prison that may have
resulted in CTE? I'm worried about you because your recollection is so far
off base that it may indicate a visit to the neurologist is in order.
If it's not faulty recollection but simply flame bait, please, leave the
"putting words in my mouth and dissing me for what I never said" technique
to T4. He's got the patent on it. If you locate the message you derived
your misinformation from, I might see it and try to explain things in
simpler terms so that you can understand them and refer to them accurately.
Now go back to sleep in the KF, Oren as I add a new rule: mark as read all
messages where message text = "Oren" - too bad that will knock out
"Florence" and "soreness" - what a great nick for you "Florence Soreness"
because you're always either giggling or sore about something. I'll lose a
few other terms like "forensics" but it's worth it to filter out all the
misinformation you tend to add to things via your misinterpretations of what
you've read. Nice seeing you again.
flORENce sORENess - only a computer could come up with something like that.
This is as far as I've read in the thread.
Just wanted to note, I've posted on both sides of this topic. I'm not
saying he knew anything. I just pointed out what bothered me, but I
alos hypothesized he was totallly innoncent and showed sympathy for the
fix he would be in if someone he fired chose to get even.
I wasn't there. I don't khow who did what.
There is a theory in marketing that says: "There's no such thing as bad
publicity." Unfortunately, in this case, Christie's in a position to have
people think of him and his dirty tricks every time they are stuck in a
traffic jam (that's quite often in NJ).
This scandal's still young. There are many, many ways for this to grow
much, much worse even though Christie seems to be handling it as well as
anyone. The big problem is that this wasn't bad judgment or an accident.
It was performed with malice aforethought, and legally, that puts him in a
very bad spot if a true smoking gun with his fingerprints materializes.
Unlike the alleged scandals Fox beats on daily, Bridgegate involves a very
high up in Christie's organization. A hand-picked lieutenant whose actions
he *should* have known about. He's faced with either being an idiot for not
knowing, or a liar for knowing. Not good choices.
Either he knew and did nothing or was so out of touch with his underlings
that they ran wild without supervision. Neither is what I would call
"sterling leadership." Now, with his back to the wall, the "bus throwing"
What will happen now is that the intense scrutiny of ALL his actions will
begin with a eye towards finding other acts of political revenges. As my
old J prof used to say, no one looks good under the microscope.
Personally this is probably gets my vote second dumbest idiocy in
American public discussion today (right behind the President's "budget
deficits"). It is pretty much impossible to know everything that is
going on in any big organization (heck how many times does one spouse
not know what the other is up to). The test of leadership is what
happens when someone goes off the reservation and screws up. Does a
person address the issue, make sure it is well understood that this
isn't good enough and not up to his or her expectations and then
institutes methods to lessen (not prevent) it happening again.
If this is done by the leadership at the top, then it should lessen
(but not prevent) that chances of a new one.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
Forgive me, but I don't recall you expressing that sentiment about the Holy
Trinity of the Tea Party: Benghazi, the IRS and Fast and Furious - I'll call
them BIFF for short, apologies to Arthur Miller. Did I miss something? If
I did, I apologize in advance.
Sounds like that principle should definitely apply to BIFF despite the
never-ending Fox baying and howling that accompanies those three subjects.
Benghazi was 1,000's of miles away on an anniversary day where any part of
the militant Muslim world could have exploded.
As for part two of BIFF, the IRS is a fairly independent Federal agency.
It's one that politicians have long tended to stay away from even *wanting*
to know anything about because of the potential for blowback. How many
employees does the Federal government have? How many in the IRS? How far
removed was the unit reviewing tax-exemption applications from Obama? Those
are good reasons to put the big yawn to claims of Obama's complicity in any
possible wrongdoing there despite the incessant hammering away by Fox and
their "bestest" and most loyal viewer, Trader. (-:
So yes, I agree with your principle in general. It's stupid to blame someone
like the President for every sparrow that falls in the forest. How the hell
was he supposed to know what, exactly those IRS factotums were doing?
Fast and Furious? That was an ongoing *Bush* era program out in the far
west ATF field offices that so far hasn't been connectable to Obama other
than in the mind of Tea Party conspiratists. So yes, how was the leader of
the entire Federal government supposed to know about all the programs the
ATF (and dozens of other agencies) are running? How many active
investigations do you think are going on right at this instant? More than
enough to make Obama's alleged complicity in the death of a border guard
almost breathtakingly preposterous.
Agreed. That's *one* test of leadership. Another test would be evaluating
who that leader
hired and personally vetted to act in his name. That's one major difference
in the comparison of BIFF to Bridgegate. BRIDGEt Kelly (thanks, Mark!) was
his deputy chief of staff. That implies an almost inseparable closeness.
From the FreeDictionary:
Deputy: A person appointed or empowered to act for another. 2. An assistant
full authority in the absence of his or her superior.
"Full authority." "Empowered to act for another." She wasn't some
mid-level bureaucrat in the IRS or a senior agent out in one of the many ATF
field offices. She was a right hand "man" for Christie. There are NO
massive, intervening layers of bureaucracy separating the two as in the Fox
BIFF hunt. That's why this issue is getting traction while BIFF isn't
exactly boffo at the box office no matter how many times Trader and Fox
A good leader should try very hard *not* to hire people who exceed their
authority or worse yet, engage in potentially illegal schemes to prove some
sort of perverse political point. Maybe Kelly masked her ineptitude and
vengefulness on her application the same way Christie neglected to mention
his connection to mob figures on his USDA application. Either way, it
points to a serious problem in judgment and truthfulness. Important items
to consider in a potential President.
If his leadership was so profound, why did it take this long to get to the
truth? Christie was peddling that "traffic study" for over four months now,
right up until the time copies of damning emails began to surface. That
really, really makes it look like he got righteous only when his back was
snugly pushed against the wall and hard physical evidence began to surface.
Do people caught red-handed being associated with massive stupidity have any
choice except to at least *appear* that they are tackling the problem "head
on?" Didn't Nixon act tough with the very same people he "deputized" to
break into the Democratic Watergate HQ? And even tougher with the people
who wouldn't buy into that storyline when he began determined to head off
the investigation by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox?
We know now that it was all a big act by Nixon to try to save his political
career. And it
didn't. Do we want another revenge-obsessed person in the Whitehouse?
Remember John Dean, who probably put into play the Watergate disaster with
his infamous memo:
<John Dean's 16 August 1971 memo introduces the list first with your regular
office jargon: "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize
the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in
their opposition to our Administration." OK, well that doesn't sound too
bad, until we get to the next sentence: "Stated a bit more bluntly - how we
can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.">
Only time will tell if Christie survives untarnished. I doubt he will
because this opens Pandora's box and invites reporters to look into
everything he's ever done. It's an opportunity for all the Paula Jones and
Gennifer Flowers to come forward and pile on. I agree, it's ugly and not
the stuff that good political discourse *should* focus on, but the right's
obsession with BIFF called the tune and now, apparently, doesn't like having
to dance to it.
This is the whirlwind that the BIFF attack dogs have sown and what they
should have thought about when they started their relentless hammering. Did
they really believe that the hammer would never turn on them? Apparently
so. (Harry Reid may soon learn the same lesson re: the nuclear option.)
It's very obvious that some on the right are trying as hard to unlink
Christie from this scandal as they are trying to link Obama to anything bad
that ever happened in the world. I am more than willing to see where the
potentially numerous investigations lead. Every second we wait brings CC
closer to the Republican primaries where this issue is bound to dog him.
I'd be looking for the release of a tape similar to the 47% one that sank
Romney shortly before the convention, especially if one of those that have
resigned or been fired had some sort of "protection" against being hung out
Bridgegate is a true scandal because it's a malicious act against citizens
of NJ obviously committed by a person who was empowered to act in the
governor's name. The question now is: "was she doing so independently or at
the Governor's direction?" If the right finds this sort of discourse
distasteful or stupid, they should have thought to apply those standards to
the BIFF inquisition, a go-nowhere witch hunt and dead horse they're still
trying to beat back to life. Those inquiries are as dead as that California
girl being kept on a ventilator. So sad.
Unless, as many people suspect, the leadership (Christie) had already set
the tone and everyone on staff thought it was quite acceptable to commit
acts of political revenge on innocent citizens. That's sounding more likely
every day that new info is revealed. It's hard not to sense that it was
"business as usual" when one of the seemingly many perpetrators reminds
another "no (traceable) emails!" This seems to strongly imply a culture of
payback, not the isolated actions of a rogue employee, the explanation that
is almost always given in cases like this, often just before the full scope
of a scandal is revealed.
The problem here is that this was no accident - it was pure malice. You can
hardly hope to read all the articles ever written about Chris Christie and
revenge because there are so many:
About 44,400,000 results (use the date filter to exclude Bridgegate and it's
still a lot of reading!)
FWIW, I don't feel this is stupid at all. This is an important discussion
about the character of a person thought to be seeking to run for president
in 2016. We both know this is exactly the sort of thing that your average
voter considers strongly because they can directly relate to what happened.
A few people here have already said things like "I thought he was a good guy
until this came out." I'll bet a few million more are thinking exactly the
Will the severed heads of Kelly and the Port Authority employees be enough
to placate the beasts stalking Christie (figurative humor alert)? Only time
will tell and I suspect it's going to be a very uncomfortable time for CC,
especially if other, moldy shoes from the past start to drop.
While I agree it's possible CC had no idea what his staff was doing, I find
it highly unlikely. Allowing Kelly to run wild would imply that he's the
sort of leader that doesn't even know what his right hand people are doing.
It would also imply that no one in this horrible chain of idiotic events
thought he'd better go tell the boss what scheme his underlings were
hatching. Neither explanation is good for CC - it's just that one is a
whole lot worse than the other. The frying pan or the fire.
I spent two hours on Friday explaining to a liberal friend that this event
in no way will affect the 2016 presidential election or his tenure as
governor of NJ. The comments I've read here have now convinced me
Christie may have just lost the all-important segment of Democrats willing
to vote Republican for the right candidate - the very thing that made him
electable as the Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. CC was
the most electable presidential candidate the Republicans had. "Was."
Christie is now "all in" on his denials. If something turns up that links
him directly to the closings, as Rudolph Giuliani says, he's done:
<< "If for some reason [Christie's denial] is not true, the man has put his
political career completely at risk,">> said Giuliani.
It was a remarkably stupid thing to do and the time for a real leader to
have "come clean" was right after it happened in September, not after
irrefutable evidence of complicity at the highest levels finally surfaced.
Was he incapable of getting to the truth before anyone else? It was his own
hand-picked staff, for God's sake. Was he so out-of-touch he couldn't get
straight answers out of them? The grand apology comes a little too late to
be completely credible, at least in my book.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:13:23 -0500, "Robert Green"
Not only that, it was an attempt to do a good thing. Why would anyone
have been prosecuted? Had the plan worked, they would have all been
praised, but something went wrong. The people who complain about FF
can't distinguish a failed attempt to do good from a successful attempt
to do bad.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.