Their motto is Do No Evil not Do Nothing Illegal
Now, we can argue whether they actually follow that, but using tactics so convoluted that you have to have a team of lawyers and get approval from the IRS to set them up in order to avoid supporting the society that makes your business possible is evil.
The preceding list is not all-inclusive, naturally, as I'm sure yours isn't either. I just found it interesting that you were modded "funny" for a bunch of partisan hackery, so please enjoy this counterbalance.
Goddamit, where is the +1 Irony moderation?!?
That's the feminist/social sciences dogma. See Palmer & Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape for a different dogmatic response.
There, fixed that for you. The movement in evolutionary psychology is no less unexamined in its belief that psychology results from evolution than are the feminists and social scientists. Palmer and Thornhill miss a lot in their analysis. What drives male/male rapes? Incest with young children? Rape with objects? In other ports? The science is pretty poor and the solution-- chicks should dress more modestly and try to seem "unavailable."
People say "offer premium content" with a wave of their hands. Well, what did you have in mind?
Ponies?
Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)
I think you have a slight misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is the original text plus all adopted amendments. Our progressive income tax would have been invalid under the Constitution as it existed at its signing, but that's not our Constitution nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).
I'll assume that you're a bright person who was fooled by the sort of BS tactics that extremists on both sides use to "prove" their points. That interview on Breitbart's site (which he leaves undated, purposely) is from 2001 not from a couple of weeks ago.
If you'd like to hear something more recent, try this 2008 interview with Sunstein and Eugene Volokh
WTF? The guiding principle in government contracts should be to get the lowest practical price, not the lowest theoretical price. Otherwise the result would be that many companies will not care to bid for the government.
The guiding principle is that the government get the best combination of price, schedule, and quality. There is no theory in the TINA pricing. The company is required to say "our costs will be X and our profit Y to deliver Z to you when you want it." The government "allows" only a certain amount of profit on a contract. If you make more, perhaps a component's cost goes down hugely in the market, you are required to go back to the gov't and allow them a rebate on their cost. If you make more because you fudged the numbers, you get barred from federal contracts and may also end up behind bars. It is for these exact reasons that many companies don't do business with the government. I should also mention (having some experience in the process) that the companies still manage to hide an awful lot of "excess profit" and I don't feel the need to cry for them.
My first job was in detailing cost estimates for a company that custom built heavy mechanical equipment. One rule there was that for any government job the cost would be higher. There's so much paperwork involved in government jobs that it's impossible to do it at the same price you charge private companies.
Don't have a GSA Schedule Contract, then. Trust me, those vendors who have them are happy to have one, but not all vendors/products work well with them. I think you're confusing contracting with the government in general with having a Most Favored Customer agreement with them. Not all (not most?) government contracts have such a clause.
The Tao is like a stack: the data changes but not the structure. the more you use it, the deeper it becomes; the more you talk of it, the less you understand.
