Hot on the heels (err... Mudflaps) of the Million Trucker March this week, a very large group of American veterans have descended on Washington D.C. and are dismantling the barricades around the WW2, Vietnam and Korean war memorials. I don't have a news source for this as this is happening right now. Here's photographic evidence though.
All right! It's about time those clowns on the right and those jokers on the left heard from real America! Thank these guys for their continuing service if you can. Honestly if they let us default I've got my own little bit of civil disobedience i'm planning. I'm trying to convince a family friend who's a judge to issue aresst warrants on the president, the cabinet, every member of congress, and every lobbiest we can get our hands on for charges of high treason. If they won't talk as free men, well I think being cellies would give Obama and Bohner plenty of time to talk waiting for arraignment.
yeri wrote: I'm trying to convince a family friend who's a judge to issue aresst warrants on the president, the cabinet, every member of congress, and every lobbiest we can get our hands on for charges of high treason.
Please make sure you post on youtube the video of those warrants being serviced. I think the public would want to see that.
YouTube? Naw right now the main problem is finding enough people willing to be deputized to serve the warrants. I've studied the law on this and it would be perfectly legal to do this, but just in case somebody tries to stop us I'm basically going to alert the major media sources and have them show it live as the deputies make the arrests. Noting would play better in the press than a lawmaker trying to avoid a perfectly legal warrant with the whole thing playing out on live television. Good thing I know the director of diversity at one of the networks who can tell them I'm not just some cook.
Sadly, the "million" truckers failed to materialize. I've heard reports of 15-40 or so rigs and vehicles with stickers identifying themselves as part of the cause. Apparently 4 of them drove abreast for a while, bringing traffic down to 15mph for a bit (which from what I've heard about DC highways, may have actually been an improvement), until police pulled them over and asked them to knock it off. Far as I know no charges were laid and they went on their way.
Man, what happened to shutting down traffic for days and arresting congress!?!
The truckers were mildly annoying, the funny thing is, they can't do anything DC beltway traffic already does, Most of them got stuck in traffic as we have been having terrible constant rain for a week and just burned their own money and fuel opposed to causing traffic.
You mean the Veterans who are... at that protest performing a symbolic act of civil disobedience in the face of a serious pile of gak from our federal government? Maybe you're not looking out enough KK.
d-usa wrote: Veterans breaking the laws because they are special...
That would be this:
They have 'em....
They should be having these:
I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for the people who think that laws and rules don't apply to them anymore because they are veterans. They go on the same pile as the veterans who piss and moan when they find out that they cannot fly a flag at their house because they were too lazy to read the contract that they signed before they purchased a house in a neighborhood with a HOA. Break the law, get arrested. I'm just going to guess that a lot of the people supporting these actions, and even committing these actions, were supporting this guy 100% when he dealt with this "civil disobedience" nonsense:
Because kids sitting on a sidewalk doing some civil disobedience = pepper spray and arrest those dirty hippies! Kids storming DC and the national mall tearing down barriers in a case of civil disobedience = pepper spray and arrest those dirty hipp.....what? Those are not dirty hippies? The people breaking the law are veterans? Get some cameras on those guys that are heroes!
If only there was something lawful, useful, and something with far more impact these people could be doing.
Maybe they could cook a meal today for their fellow veterans who are homeless and going hungry because their benefits are affected by this shutdown:
25% of our homeless population are veterans.
Maybe they could be volunteering at the VA today, helping out injured veterans there. You know how many of these guys would be absolutely thrilled to have somebody come and help them get down to the smoking area and talk to them while they are down there?
It's a sad state of affairs when we celebrate these clowns for breaking the law.
How much more of an impact would it have made if these veterans would have come together at the capitols of their respective states to collect supplies for their homeless fellow veterans and cook a meal for them. But instead of a nice camera shot of a parking lot filled with homeless veterans being cared for by their fellow veterans and current members of their military while giving interviews about "DC has abandoned us, we take care of our own if these idiots will not take care of us!" we get camera shots of guys going "we are breaking the law, now we can hang out at a memorial lulz".
d-usa wrote: How much more of an impact would it have made if these veterans would have come together at the capitols of their respective states to collect supplies for their homeless fellow veterans and cook a meal for them. But instead of a nice camera shot of a parking lot filled with homeless veterans being cared for by their fellow veterans and current members of their military while giving interviews about "DC has abandoned us, we take care of our own if these idiots will not take care of us!" we get camera shots of guys going "we are breaking the law, now we can hang out at a memorial lulz".
d-usa wrote: Veterans breaking the laws because they are special...
That would be this:
They have 'em....
They should be having these:
I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for the people who think that laws and rules don't apply to them anymore because they are veterans. They go on the same pile as the veterans who piss and moan when they find out that they cannot fly a flag at their house because they were too lazy to read the contract that they signed before they purchased a house in a neighborhood with a HOA. Break the law, get arrested. I'm just going to guess that a lot of the people supporting these actions, and even committing these actions, were supporting this guy 100% when he dealt with this "civil disobedience" nonsense:
Because kids sitting on a sidewalk doing some civil disobedience = pepper spray and arrest those dirty hippies!
Kids storming DC and the national mall tearing down barriers in a case of civil disobedience = pepper spray and arrest those dirty hipp.....what? Those are not dirty hippies? The people breaking the law are veterans? Get some cameras on those guys that are heroes!
If only there was something lawful, useful, and something with far more impact these people could be doing.
Maybe they could cook a meal today for their fellow veterans who are homeless and going hungry because their benefits are affected by this shutdown:
25% of our homeless population are veterans.
Maybe they could be volunteering at the VA today, helping out injured veterans there. You know how many of these guys would be absolutely thrilled to have somebody come and help them get down to the smoking area and talk to them while they are down there?
It's a sad state of affairs when we celebrate these clowns for breaking the law.
How much more of an impact would it have made if these veterans would have come together at the capitols of their respective states to collect supplies for their homeless fellow veterans and cook a meal for them. But instead of a nice camera shot of a parking lot filled with homeless veterans being cared for by their fellow veterans and current members of their military while giving interviews about "DC has abandoned us, we take care of our own if these idiots will not take care of us!" we get camera shots of guys going "we are breaking the law, now we can hang out at a memorial lulz".
Wait, the Resident of the United States throws a hissyfit and locks down the monuments and that is supposed to be "The law"?
d-usa wrote: How much more of an impact would it have made if these veterans would have come together at the capitols of their respective states to collect supplies for their homeless fellow veterans and cook a meal for them. But instead of a nice camera shot of a parking lot filled with homeless veterans being cared for by their fellow veterans and current members of their military while giving interviews about "DC has abandoned us, we take care of our own if these idiots will not take care of us!" we get camera shots of guys going "we are breaking the law, now we can hang out at a memorial lulz".
They went for the coverage.
Considering the coverage OhBlameOh gets from the media, its about time.
Wait, the Resident of the United States throws a hissyfit and locks down the monuments and that is supposed to be "The law"?
...
Considering the coverage OhBlameOh gets from the media, its about time.
Oh man, those awesome clever posts totally disputed and countered any argument that these guys could be doing something useful instead of breaking the law and resulting in absolutely nothing at all.
d-usa wrote: How much more of an impact would it have made if these veterans would have come together at the capitols of their respective states to collect supplies for their homeless fellow veterans and cook a meal for them. But instead of a nice camera shot of a parking lot filled with homeless veterans being cared for by their fellow veterans and current members of their military while giving interviews about "DC has abandoned us, we take care of our own if these idiots will not take care of us!" we get camera shots of guys going "we are breaking the law, now we can hang out at a memorial lulz".
They went for the coverage.
So they don't actually care about anything? A photo-op is more important than actually physically taking care of their fellow veteran?
Budgets are Congress' job, they can't pass one, the President cannot by law spend money.
You want to know who built this shutdown look at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Uh, they have, the Democrat controlled Senate has rejected all of them. Nice try though!
That would be part of the whole READ THE CONSTITUTION thing. It takes both houses and the president to pass a budget. Holding your breath, stamping your feet, shutting down the government and risking default is the consquences of them not doing their job which includes compromise and deal making.
d-usa wrote: Veterans breaking the laws because they are special...
That would be this:
They have 'em....
They should be having these:
I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for the people who think that laws and rules don't apply to them anymore because they are veterans. They go on the same pile as the veterans who piss and moan when they find out that they cannot fly a flag at their house because they were too lazy to read the contract that they signed before they purchased a house in a neighborhood with a HOA. Break the law, get arrested. I'm just going to guess that a lot of the people supporting these actions, and even committing these actions, were supporting this guy 100% when he dealt with this "civil disobedience" nonsense:
Because kids sitting on a sidewalk doing some civil disobedience = pepper spray and arrest those dirty hippies!
Kids storming DC and the national mall tearing down barriers in a case of civil disobedience = pepper spray and arrest those dirty hipp.....what? Those are not dirty hippies? The people breaking the law are veterans? Get some cameras on those guys that are heroes!
If only there was something lawful, useful, and something with far more impact these people could be doing.
Maybe they could cook a meal today for their fellow veterans who are homeless and going hungry because their benefits are affected by this shutdown:
25% of our homeless population are veterans.
Maybe they could be volunteering at the VA today, helping out injured veterans there. You know how many of these guys would be absolutely thrilled to have somebody come and help them get down to the smoking area and talk to them while they are down there?
It's a sad state of affairs when we celebrate these clowns for breaking the law.
How much more of an impact would it have made if these veterans would have come together at the capitols of their respective states to collect supplies for their homeless fellow veterans and cook a meal for them. But instead of a nice camera shot of a parking lot filled with homeless veterans being cared for by their fellow veterans and current members of their military while giving interviews about "DC has abandoned us, we take care of our own if these idiots will not take care of us!" we get camera shots of guys going "we are breaking the law, now we can hang out at a memorial lulz".
While I agree that soldiers in general are at times given a little too much favoritism, but what if a soldier feels that a certain law is immoral then wouldn't the moral thing to do would be to break the law?
Soldiers are trained to disobey an illegal order. As a veteran, I can vouch for this. It is NOT illegal to disobey an illegal order. If you think these patriotic veterans should go to jail, and congress shouldn't, you need to re-evaluate your priorities. For all those out there that are liberal, why are you always for civil disobedience, except when it's against our glorious leader?
Cheesecat wrote: While I agree that soldiers in general are at times given a little too much favoritism, but what if a soldier feels that a certain law is immoral then wouldn't the moral thing to do would be to break the law?
My only problem with that post is really the word "soldier" or in the case of this particular event "veteran".
If people from all walks of life think a law is immoral enough to protest it and break it, then people from all walks of life should have the exact same privileges and/or consequences from that action. Being a veteran should have zero impact on deciding if breaking the law is justified or not.
Of course the second question would be "is putting barricades in front of a national park an immoral law that requires civil disobedience".
"Due to lack of funding this park is closed" is an illegal order?
As a veteran, I can vouch for this. It is NOT illegal to disobey an illegal order. If you think these patriotic veterans should go to jail, and congress shouldn't, you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
How is anything they are doing "patriotism"? Is it because it's veterans doing it?
For all those out there that are liberal, why are you always for civil disobedience, except when it's against our glorious leader?
d-usa wrote: So they don't actually care about anything? A photo-op is more important than actually physically taking care of their fellow veteran?
That's an extremely cynical takeaway from that statement.
Perhaps they feel the best way to take care of all veterans is to bring the shutdown to an end, and therefore that getting major network coverage would be more useful than doing something that most media networks wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole due to bias.
Musashi363 wrote: For all those out there that are liberal, why are you always for civil disobedience, except when it's against our glorious leader?
I definitely lean left, and I'd love to see more protesting against Obama. I think his broken promise to close Guantanamo bay is horrible, I wish he hadn't punked out on trying them as criminals, I wish he would lobby harder for defense spending, I am very unhappy that he caved on the Public option, I think the lack of oversight on drone usage is awful, I really wish he'd stop our policy of unbalanced support for Israel, and so on and so forth.
But the shutdown? That's bananas. No one wanted to avoid a shutdown worse than Obama, and to be honest, probably John Boehner too. At least John Boehner bears some responsibility in this, indirectly - in that he supported the extreme elements when it suited his purposes, and hence empowered them.
So far as the war veterans, I think it's great they're protesting, but agree with KK that they're in the wrong place.
Cheesecat wrote: While I agree that soldiers in general are at times given a little too much favoritism, but what if a soldier feels that a certain law is immoral then wouldn't the moral thing to do would be to break the law?
My only problem with that post is really the word "soldier" or in the case of this particular event "veteran".
If people from all walks of life think a law is immoral enough to protest it and break it, then people from all walks of life should have the exact same privileges and/or consequences from that action. Being a veteran should have zero impact on deciding if breaking the law is justified or not.
Of course the second question would be "is putting barricades in front of a national park an immoral law that requires civil disobedience".
"Due to lack of funding this park is closed" is an illegal order?
As a veteran, I can vouch for this. It is NOT illegal to disobey an illegal order. If you think these patriotic veterans should go to jail, and congress shouldn't, you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
How is anything they are doing "patriotism"? Is it because it's veterans doing it?
For all those out there that are liberal, why are you always for civil disobedience, except when it's against our glorious leader?
You were in full support of the Occupy movement?
In answer to your question about barricades in front of a park, yes, it is immoral when people that have lived there for decades on land they lease from the government are given 24 hours to get out of their homes. My sister is friends with a couple who are in their mid 70's who have lived by Lake Mead since 1976 or so that had that done to them, along with several others. The poor wife was so flustered that she forgot to pack clothes for her husband and he ended up having to leave with nothing more than what he was wearing. When they tried to get back to their house later, they were met with barricades and armed guards.
As far as the occupy movement goes, I think that is an unfair comparison until the vets start leaving garbage and feces everywhere. By accounts that I hear, these groups go in and clean the parks.
Considering the coverage OhBlameOh gets from the media, its about time.
First, that's a new one. A lame one, but a new one.
Second, he's the President of the United States so, yeah, he gets media coverage. I know it might be shocking, but what he does is more important than what some random veterans do.
I usually stay out of threads like this, but I should probably say something.
First, I don't consider myself part of any particular political party. I have my own views on Veterans and how they're treated as a three-deployment combat wounded Marine and former platoon sergeant of Wounded Warriors Battalion East in North Carolina. I *choose* to keep those views to myself for the most part, but this time I might want to share some insight:
I have been awaiting for the V.A. to apply, process and simply file certain claims. These claims (without going into my privacy too much) include basic residence-changing and adoption/dependent information changes. They might seem very simple, but simple is not a word the VA knows, and they are very important modifications to information on file that effect my entire disability check, so that's why it takes so long for them to process that crap.
During this "shut down", the services I rate have not been slowed down. My claims are still being processed, as are the claims of over fifty of my fellow Marines with whom I served. One thing that people are worried about (or the "news" sites are saying) is that benefits and pay will stop. I have something to say about that, too: Nope. Also, the VA center phone lines did not close, as some of those Republican websites were complaining about.
All that brings me to my second point. Choose your news. Choose it carefully. If someone posts a terrible picture or story making Liberals look bad on Facebook, you should probably not take it seriously if it says something like "Freeusfromsatanrightwingers.org". That's just an example. I don't want to name some of the Republican/Tea Party/Conservative websites out there that are posting this information, because you probably see them already.. plus, I just don't care.
Let me be clear a minute. I'm not an Obama supporter, or trying to make Republicans/Liberals look bad.
Moving on, and speaking of propaganda... No, Obama is not going to rip up the constitution because he has a new one in mind. Want to guess what kind of website says that? That's not the important part. The important part is that it's insane how many people are buying that crap. I'm all for being treated fairly. I don't think Veterans are getting that treatment, and the barricade thing makes sense to me. Like I said- I'm just here to advise you to use caution when getting your news.
My personal opinion is that the shut-down is, will always be, and has been before, a complete party-play by both sides in which they point fingers and blame each other for a while. I'm not saying anything you don't already know about politicians, of course..
I thought it would be helpful if I shared my opinions as a Veteran, since Veterans are involved in all that DC stuff obviously.
Now let me get one last thing straight- I do know of a few Veterans who are getting slowed benefits due to the "shut-down", but as I have been told in person by very credible representatives in the VA with whom I have close relationships with, this is due mistakes made or incomplete before this shut-down happened. It is abhorrent that people who RATE benefits do not get them. I think that the barricade issue is sad. I think that people taking pictures down in Arlington that families put up is sad.. But sometimes, Americans *might* want to wait until things blow over. I doubt that anyone is going to raise an AR-15 against the government when they see that things will get better (and it's not a hell-blazing inferno at the moment).
If I confused anyone, please allow me to explain (if you request). Sometimes I ramble. I'm looking forward to discussing this one, but don't expect anything too crazy besides what I've already said. I'm no lawyer, political major or degree-holder.
Say y'all do know that the House could vote to end the shutdown today (well if they weren't on vacation) with democratic and moderate republican votes.
But Boehner won't allow it.
So yeah, those guys are 100% on the wrong end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Do the people getting outraged by this seriously not see how ridiculously transparent it is?
Bachmann/Palin/Cruz say they won't have veterans being used as political pawns, then they go down to the monument and use veterans as political pawns.
Do you guys not understand what is happening here?
also this
It amazes me. Of all the huge issues currently going on at the moment, the republican and tea party focus on veterans memorials.
Not the women and children and babies at risk.
Not the fact that the CDC isn't open and doing it's job
Not the fact that 800,000 people and countless other are directly or indirectly affected.
No. Gotta focus on the vets 'storming' the barricades and stage stupid pictures like the raising of the flag over barriers in front of the White House.
It's fething disgusting.
Pretty much how I feel.
Anyone who thinks this veteran's show is anything other than a farce to stir up anger and vitriol and distract from real issues is, well, a fool. Sorry.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Say y'all do know that the House could vote to end the shutdown today (well if they weren't on vacation) with democratic and moderate republican votes.
But Boehner won't allow it.
So yeah, those guys are 100% on the wrong end of Pennsylvania Ave.
To be fair:
Even if this is 100% the fault of senate democrats they would still be at the wrong address...
Oh, I have something else to say about the pictures above with Homeless Veterans.
Those who don't help themselves deserve what they get. Those veterans who turn to drugs, gambling, alcohol and turn their backs on their families and friends because of egos deserve to be on the streets. You're still a veteran.. but someone giving you 5 bucks for lunch (or drugs) as you stand by the street doesn't know if you got a Dishonorable Discharge for sexually assaulting some chick or getting busted for drugs. Just saying. There are those out there who are like that. Use caution when using homeless vets in political stuff. It's not the government's fault. They provide with the means to go to school for Tzeentch's sake. Do they have any idea how good that is? If they don't use it, they deserve to work at McDonald's or be lazy and not have a house.
I asked for a homeless vet to tell me when he got out and he said he didn't remember, then I told him "Well it's on your DD-214". He said "What's a DD-214"?
The homeless vet issue is an issue with Veterans themselves, in probably half the cases. It doesn't belong in politics.
Brometheus wrote: Oh, I have something else to say about the pictures above with Homeless Veterans.
Those who don't help themselves deserve what they get. Those veterans who turn to drugs, gambling, alcohol and turn their backs on their families and friends because of egos deserve to be on the streets.
You're still a veteran.. but someone giving you 5 bucks for lunch (or drugs) as you stand by the street doesn't know if you got a Dishonorable Discharge for sexually assaulting some chick or not. Just saying. There are those out there who are like that.
I asked for a homeless vet to tell me when he got out and he said he didn't remember, then I told him "Well it's on your DD-214". He said "What's a DD-214"?
The homeless vet issue is an issue with Veterans themselves, in probably half the cases. It doesn't belong in politics.
Everything is black and white. Obviously!
Everyone is dealt and absolutely equal hand in everything, and fething bootstraps are the only way to do it!
The fact that quite a few of the homeless veterans who are addicts/drunks/etc have these issues because of crap care and resources as well as the social stigma that used to be attached to people who can't deal with it themselves makes it even sadder to see veterans judge each other like that.
I know it's a bit of a generalization, but I see quite a difference between the way WW2, Korean, Vietnam, and more recent conflict vets treat each other at work.
It means a lot to me that you noted that you might be making a generalization. In the end, I know who I worked with and how i worked with them. im interested in hearing your view on how this generation treats each other at work. To prove im not trying to start anything negative, you could pm it to me. Oh and ill add a smiley too.
Brometheus wrote: It means a lot to me that you noted that you might be making a generalization. In the end, I know who I worked with and how i worked with them. im interested in hearing your view on how this generation treats each other at work. To prove im not trying to start anything negative, you could pm it to me. Oh and ill add a smiley too.
Budgets are Congress' job, they can't pass one, the President cannot by law spend money.
You want to know who built this shutdown look at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Uh, they have, the Democrat controlled Senate has rejected all of them. Nice try though!
That would be part of the whole READ THE CONSTITUTION thing. It takes both houses and the president to pass a budget. Holding your breath, stamping your feet, shutting down the government and risking default is the consquences of them not doing their job which includes compromise and deal making.
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
You don't compromise by saying "Gimme!".
Republicans who really believe that they're trying to get a "compromise" are deluding themselves.
Budgets are Congress' job, they can't pass one, the President cannot by law spend money.
You want to know who built this shutdown look at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Uh, they have, the Democrat controlled Senate has rejected all of them. Nice try though!
That would be part of the whole READ THE CONSTITUTION thing. It takes both houses and the president to pass a budget. Holding your breath, stamping your feet, shutting down the government and risking default is the consquences of them not doing their job which includes compromise and deal making.
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
Seeing as any comment that isn't insulting the president will be completely ignored, I'll just go ahead and past d-usa's post explaining why what you just said is a complete crock of gak.
WASHINGTON -- It’s become a common House Republican talking point that Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama could end the shutdown of the government if they simply chose to negotiate.
“What we are looking at here again is an administration and president that seems to be unwilling to sit down and talk to us,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) bemoaned at a press conference on Saturday morning.
While Cantor is right that Democrats aren't exactly in the talking mood, the suggestion that they aren’t willing to negotiate ignores that they’ve already given Republicans a major win. The continuing resolution that the White House and congressional Democrats have agreed to funds the government at sequestration levels. And even some members of Cantor's own caucus admit that they got the good end of that deal.
“It is a concession, I acknowledge that,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told The Huffington Post on Saturday. “I was glad to see that lower number. It didn’t take defense spending into account. We still have a big discrepancy between the House and Senate version. But there has been some compromise and I acknowledge that.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reneged on a deal they hashed out in private earlier this year to pass a “clean” stopgap bill funding the government.
Reid said Boehner never wanted to wage a protracted battle over ObamaCare as part of the negotiations to keep the government running.
“I know that that’s not the path he preferred,” Reid said. “I know that because we met the first week we came back in September and he told me that what he wanted was a clean CR and the $988 [billion] number.
“We didn’t like the 988 number. We didn’t like it but we negotiated. That was our compromise,” Reid added. “The exact bill that he now refuses to let the House vote on. That was our negotiation.”
Many Democrats wanted to set the funding level in the continuing resolution at $1.058 trillion, rather than at the sequester level of $988 billion.
Reid said he didn’t have to twist Boehner’s arm to get a preliminary deal on a clean stopgap.
“He twisted mine a little bit to get that number,” Reid said.
“Now he refused to let his own party vote because he’s afraid to stand up to something he originally agreed to,” he added.
Clearly agitated at the memory, Reid said the two met in early September and reached a compromise about the end-of-the month deadline to pass a spending bill. Reid said Boehner agreed to pass a $988 billion spending package, $70 billion less than what the senate leader wanted.
“That was really hard,” Reid said, referring his decision to drop $70 billion. “My caucus really didn't like that. We took a real hit.”
Asked if Boehner at the time promised to deliver a clean continuing resolution, Reid said: “That's why we did it. That's why we agreed to that lower number. So that's one of the largest compromises since I've been in Congress.”
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Interesting bit of trivia, those park police keeping people out of closed parks and monuments...
They're working without pay. They have been for 2 weeks.
And as 'essential' workers they can't opt to stay home or even take a day off.
But no tears for them and their families, nor blame for the one man in Congress who can call a vote tomorrow (if he wasn't on vacation).
Far be it for me to stop someone for blaming Blackman McMuslimName for all the ills of the world.
Unfortunately, the TRUTH doesnt back your fairytale. Those working are being paid, those furloughed are getting unemployment now that they dont have to pay back and backpay later when this blows over.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Interesting bit of trivia, those park police keeping people out of closed parks and monuments...
They're working without pay. They have been for 2 weeks.
And as 'essential' workers they can't opt to stay home or even take a day off.
But no tears for them and their families, nor blame for the one man in Congress who can call a vote tomorrow (if he wasn't on vacation).
Far be it for me to stop someone for blaming Blackman McMuslimName for all the ills of the world.
Unfortunately, the TRUTH doesnt back your fairytale. Those working are being paid, those furloughed are getting unemployment now that they dont have to pay back and backpay later when this blows over.
Budgets are Congress' job, they can't pass one, the President cannot by law spend money.
You want to know who built this shutdown look at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.
Uh, they have, the Democrat controlled Senate has rejected all of them. Nice try though!
That would be part of the whole READ THE CONSTITUTION thing. It takes both houses and the president to pass a budget. Holding your breath, stamping your feet, shutting down the government and risking default is the consquences of them not doing their job which includes compromise and deal making.
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
Seeing as any comment that isn't insulting the president will be completely ignored, I'll just go ahead and past d-usa's post explaining why what you just said is a complete crock of gak.
WASHINGTON -- It’s become a common House Republican talking point that Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama could end the shutdown of the government if they simply chose to negotiate.
“What we are looking at here again is an administration and president that seems to be unwilling to sit down and talk to us,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) bemoaned at a press conference on Saturday morning.
While Cantor is right that Democrats aren't exactly in the talking mood, the suggestion that they aren’t willing to negotiate ignores that they’ve already given Republicans a major win. The continuing resolution that the White House and congressional Democrats have agreed to funds the government at sequestration levels. And even some members of Cantor's own caucus admit that they got the good end of that deal.
“It is a concession, I acknowledge that,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told The Huffington Post on Saturday. “I was glad to see that lower number. It didn’t take defense spending into account. We still have a big discrepancy between the House and Senate version. But there has been some compromise and I acknowledge that.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reneged on a deal they hashed out in private earlier this year to pass a “clean” stopgap bill funding the government.
Reid said Boehner never wanted to wage a protracted battle over ObamaCare as part of the negotiations to keep the government running.
“I know that that’s not the path he preferred,” Reid said. “I know that because we met the first week we came back in September and he told me that what he wanted was a clean CR and the $988 [billion] number.
“We didn’t like the 988 number. We didn’t like it but we negotiated. That was our compromise,” Reid added. “The exact bill that he now refuses to let the House vote on. That was our negotiation.”
Many Democrats wanted to set the funding level in the continuing resolution at $1.058 trillion, rather than at the sequester level of $988 billion.
Reid said he didn’t have to twist Boehner’s arm to get a preliminary deal on a clean stopgap.
“He twisted mine a little bit to get that number,” Reid said.
“Now he refused to let his own party vote because he’s afraid to stand up to something he originally agreed to,” he added.
Clearly agitated at the memory, Reid said the two met in early September and reached a compromise about the end-of-the month deadline to pass a spending bill. Reid said Boehner agreed to pass a $988 billion spending package, $70 billion less than what the senate leader wanted.
“That was really hard,” Reid said, referring his decision to drop $70 billion. “My caucus really didn't like that. We took a real hit.”
Asked if Boehner at the time promised to deliver a clean continuing resolution, Reid said: “That's why we did it. That's why we agreed to that lower number. So that's one of the largest compromises since I've been in Congress.”
Repeating lies doesnt make it any closer to truth...
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Interesting bit of trivia, those park police keeping people out of closed parks and monuments...
They're working without pay. They have been for 2 weeks.
And as 'essential' workers they can't opt to stay home or even take a day off.
But no tears for them and their families, nor blame for the one man in Congress who can call a vote tomorrow (if he wasn't on vacation).
Far be it for me to stop someone for blaming Blackman McMuslimName for all the ills of the world.
Unfortunately, the TRUTH doesnt back your fairytale. Those working are being paid, those furloughed are getting unemployment now that they dont have to pay back and backpay later when this blows over.
Tell that to the one million veterans at the rally and the speakers there...
“I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up,” said Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group.
I do think that you have managed to set a new standard for the OT though, congratulations.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Interesting bit of trivia, those park police keeping people out of closed parks and monuments...
They're working without pay. They have been for 2 weeks.
And as 'essential' workers they can't opt to stay home or even take a day off.
But no tears for them and their families, nor blame for the one man in Congress who can call a vote tomorrow (if he wasn't on vacation).
Far be it for me to stop someone for blaming Blackman McMuslimName for all the ills of the world.
Unfortunately, the TRUTH doesnt back your fairytale. Those working are being paid, those furloughed are getting unemployment now that they dont have to pay back and backpay later when this blows over.
Any evidence for that?
Yeah, google it your own damn self.
Your contributions to this thread are less productive than that Irish Muslim in the White House...
Spacemanvic wrote: And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
It must irritate you so much to know that the President was not only elected once, but twice by the people of the United States. Whether you like the man or not, the least you could do is respect the office.
Both sides have negotiated numerous times before the shutdown and both sides have non-negotiable items, but now the GOP has blamed the Democrats for not negotiating? Here is a list of 19 times the Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Senate Republicans by introducing their budget to a bicameral conference committee:
1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
Neither the GOP nor the Democrats have clean hands in this, despite what you have been told. The Democrats of things to offer the GOP in exchange for keeping the ACA off the table and they need to do it. The bottom line is the ACA is law that passed through the House and Senate, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. In other words, that is exactly how it is supposed to work. A handful of congressmen that personally have nothing to lose don't want to continue to fund an already funded law and in the process, will make things miserable for a lot of people all for what? The polls show that the American people think the the GOP is largely responsible for the shutdown and they will continue to think that. It will be the same thing that happened in the 90s. they main gain a couple seats here and lose a couple there and be proud about it, but in the end it will be a Pyrrhic victory because the public on the whole won't support them.
That doesn't say anything about the fact that none-of-them, furloughed or not, are getting a paycheck until the shutdown ends. Exempt employees earn pay right now, but they are not getting paid right now.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Interesting bit of trivia, those park police keeping people out of closed parks and monuments...
They're working without pay. They have been for 2 weeks.
And as 'essential' workers they can't opt to stay home or even take a day off.
But no tears for them and their families, nor blame for the one man in Congress who can call a vote tomorrow (if he wasn't on vacation).
Far be it for me to stop someone for blaming Blackman McMuslimName for all the ills of the world.
Unfortunately, the TRUTH doesnt back your fairytale. Those working are being paid, those furloughed are getting unemployment now that they dont have to pay back and backpay later when this blows over.
Dude no.
SOme feds, with multiyear appropriations are being paid their salaries, the rest are home or working without pay.
THey'll be paid once a budget is passed (or a continuing resolution since we've not had a proper budget in years) but as of now, they are not being paid.
And backpay for furloughed workers is not a done deal. It's up to COngress.
Spacemanvic wrote: And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
It must irritate you so much to know that the President was not only elected once, but twice by the people of the United States. Whether you like the man or not, the least you could do is respect the office.
Both sides have negotiated numerous times before the shutdown and both sides have non-negotiable items, but now the GOP has blamed the Democrats for not negotiating? Here is a list of 19 times the Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Senate Republicans by introducing their budget to a bicameral conference committee:
1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
Neither the GOP nor the Democrats have clean hands in this, despite what you have been told. The Democrats of things to offer the GOP in exchange for keeping the ACA off the table and they need to do it. The bottom line is the ACA is law that passed through the House and Senate, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. In other words, that is exactly how it is supposed to work. A handful of congressmen that personally have nothing to lose don't want to continue to fund an already funded law and in the process, will make things miserable for a lot of people all for what? The polls show that the American people think the the GOP is largely responsible for the shutdown and they will continue to think that. It will be the same thing that happened in the 90s. they main gain a couple seats here and lose a couple there and be proud about it, but in the end it will be a Pyrrhic victory because the public on the whole won't support them.
Not a bit. Especially when the dimwitted finally come to grips with what they voted for :
"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the
one who was going to pay for it personally."
Spacemanvic wrote:Yeah, google it your own damn self.
Spacemanvic wrote:Repeating lies doesnt make it any closer to truth...
I was going to take it easy, and just post a short reply about Burden of Proof and similar, but for two things.
1. I'm a filthy heathen Liberal, so I'm A) too stupid and B) Too entitled and C) Too lazy to find the proof I need, I need a twu-patriot(tm) like yourself to illuminate me and pull me into the light.
2. Honest to god, the sheer insurmountable stupidity of both your comments made my laptop bluescreen. They were so stupid that loading them made my computer break
Now that I've gotten that out of the way....
Spacemanvic wrote:Repeating lies doesnt make it any closer to truth...
So you just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH YOU'RE LYING CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" is considered a valid argumentative tactic these days? Seriously? Cause that post right there just lowered the level of discourse in this thread to "Nuh uh!" "Yeah too!" "Nuh uh!" "Yeah too!"
Do you not see the logical issue with those comments? I can say the exact same thing that you just said, and by your logic I will be winning the argument; after all we don't need to supply proof, the other person needs to supply our own evidence for us! and any evidence to the contrary is obviously just the filthy liberal media trying to sully the word of the patriots!
Just saying that something is a lie is meaningless unless you actually demonstrate that it is a lie otherwise you are, yet again, sticking your fingers in you ears and going "Nuh uh!"
Spacemanvic wrote:Yeah, google it your own damn self.
Hoo boy.
A) Did you wake up grumpy today or something? Cause that's quite an angry post for a polite argument on the subject of civil disobedience.
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
Why did you use the word "us"?
Are you an elected official who identifies as a Republican?
As state- and federal-run health insurance exchanges debuted across the country offering a range of prices for different tiers of insurance coverage, the new online marketplaces -- which represent the centerpiece of Obamacare -- could greatly benefit more than 40 million Americans who now lack coverage. But an additional 16 million -- who buy individual health insurance policies on the open market -- are finding out that their plans may not comply with the new law, which requires 10 essential benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drug coverage.
The only ones getting a full pay check are the "Fee" based Federal employee's. They're not part of a budget.
Other then that.
I thought I've seen ash trash bickering but Jebus. Talk about shattering the bed rock past the barrel. Quite a few of you all need to take a break a bit from posting.
People in the thread need to keep it civil, so we can have a mature debate. FFS please do this, I think most of us are adults. Take a break and step away from your computer if you're getting riled up.
OT:
I thought I had read earlier in the other thread "Harry Reid not negotiating thread" That the Executive branch determined where and what funding was cut from the government (see programs and locations closed) until Congress can get their act together and come to a compromise. Is this not the case?
I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been more outrage at this...
I think it was another thread where someone pointed out this would cause rioting in most European countries...
I thought I had read earlier in the other thread "Harry Reid not negotiating thread" That the Executive branch determined where and what funding was cut from the government (see programs and locations closed) until Congress can get their act together and come to a compromise. Is this not the case?
Yes and no.
Agencies that are funded by fees or multiyear money keep going as normal.
The rest have to draw down to 'essential staff' who, as noted, are not paid, and can't opt out of this. They must work for free.
There are criteria spelt out in law for who has to work-security of lives, Federal property, something, something. There's wiggle room in there, but not much.
I thought I had read earlier in the other thread "Harry Reid not negotiating thread" That the Executive branch determined where and what funding was cut from the government (see programs and locations closed) until Congress can get their act together and come to a compromise. Is this not the case?
The Executive determines which government functions are essential according to criteria laid out in the Antideficiency Act.
This basically means any given Executive department can claim function X is essential so long as its termination threatens human life, or property. The caveat is that each department can only work from the funds they were previously allocated.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Interesting bit of trivia, those park police keeping people out of closed parks and monuments...
They're working without pay. They have been for 2 weeks.
And as 'essential' workers they can't opt to stay home or even take a day off.
But no tears for them and their families, nor blame for the one man in Congress who can call a vote tomorrow (if he wasn't on vacation).
Far be it for me to stop someone for blaming Blackman McMuslimName for all the ills of the world.
Unfortunately, the TRUTH doesnt back your fairytale. Those working are being paid, those furloughed are getting unemployment now that they dont have to pay back and backpay later when this blows over.
My sister and her husband are federal employees. They are still working without pay. The fact that they might get paid after this is all over doesn't feed their children or pay their bills now.
Jihadin wrote: Maybe...I've said this before....they're protesting for being used as pawns in this political shoot out to give each side a black eye?
And the folks organizing the protest and giving fancy "Obama is a Muslim that needs to get kicked out of the country when you all rise up" speeches aren't using them?
I would debate you D-USA but from previous above posts you have a serious dislike for Veterans. Yes I do know where you work but we all know money talks and BS walks. Right now though you are "tainted" by the comments you made and you know I am a Vet myself Perception a Mofo is it not.
Jihadin wrote: I would debate you D-USA but from previous above posts you have a serious dislike for Veterans. Yes I do know where you work but we all know money talks and BS walks. Right now though you are "tainted" by the comments you made and you know I am a Vet myself Perception a Mofo is it not.
Seriously?
So the people who point out the bullcrap of Republicans --who are saying they "don't want veterans being used as pawns"but then flock to make speeches with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--suddenly have a serious dislike for veterans?
Money might talk and bullcrap might walk, but right now you've got some serious gall to try to say that D-Usa is "disliking veterans" for pointing out the nonsense stance that gets taken as soon as the term "veteran" gets thrown into the mix.
Jihadin wrote: I would debate you D-USA but from previous above posts you have a serious dislike for Veterans. Yes I do know where you work but we all know money talks and BS walks. Right now though you are "tainted" by the comments you made and you know I am a Vet myself
I don't have a single problem with vets. Love taking care of them.
I have a problem with people who think that they don't have to follow the rules because they are vets.
Huge difference, don't really care if you don't want to see it or not.
Perception a Mofo is it not.
A lot of people here have given you a lot of slack regarding "perception" because of your history. I wouldn't cast stones if I were you.
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
Since Kan jumped the gun. Your perception on what I said about you D is what you think I perceived from you D? In all our posts at each other over time you really think what I posted is what I really think on you D? Seriously? Think long and hard before you jump the gun like Kan did. I stand by my perceptions but I will acknowledge the other side to do I not.
Kan you forget on day one the of the Vets going into the parks that the Park Rangers didn't stop them due to being Vets themselves? I do believe I mention that somewhere in this multiple threads over the shut down.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
Jihadin wrote: Since Kan jumped the gun. Your perception on what I said about you D is what you think I perceived from you D? In all our posts at each other over time you really think what I posted is what I really think on you D? Seriously? Think long and hard before you jump the gun like Kan did. I stand by my perceptions but I will acknowledge the other side to do I not.
Kan you forget on day one the of the Vets going into the parks that the Park Rangers didn't stop them due to being Vets themselves? I do believe I mention that somewhere in this multiple threads over the shut down.
Yet that did not stop Republicans from showing up and harassing them, now did it?
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
Jihadin wrote: Really D? What about a inn on Blue Ridge? Homes on federal lands? Been all over the news. You either don't know about it or ignoring the other issues?
So a politician in Washington DC yelled at one of the guys running security at the mall on day one of the protest because people got kicked out of the inn on Blue Ridge?
Jihadin wrote: You either don't know about it or ignoring the other issues?
We should assume good faith and presume the former, not the latter. Speaking for myself, I had not read a word about it until Relapse mentioned it on the other page.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
People build homes on the mall in DC?
No, what I am talking about are the people that leased federal land and built homes in parks out here around Lake Mead and other places. These have been their only homes for decades and suddenly they were served with a 24 hour notice to get out with barricades and armed guards going up behind them as they were driven out.
D you playing "dumb? or Kan and you really have no idea on people being forced from their homes on federal lands or business being closed due to being on federal lands but not run by the federal government? If you both truly are uninformed or unwilling to see then I do believe I'm pretty much done with both you.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
They deserve to be harassed for carrying out orders given to them by superiors?
Jihadin wrote: D you playing "dumb? or Kan and you really have no idea on people being forced from their homes on federal lands or business being closed due to being on federal lands but not run by the federal government? If you both truly are uninformed or unwilling to see then I do believe I'm pretty much done with both you.
I didn't know anything about it until you said something.
But what is supposed to be done? I mean, reopening the government would probably be a start.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
People build homes on the mall in DC?
No, what I am talking about are the people that leased federal land and built homes in parks out here around Lake Mead and other places. These have been their only homes for decades and suddenly they were served with a 24 hour notice to get out with barricades and armed guards going up behind them as they were driven out.
But we were talking about politicians yelling at the mean park employees in DC because veterans. So that really doesn't have anything to do with that.
Although these people getting kicked out of their "homes" is a bit of a falsehood. They are vacation homes, so it's really no different than telling people to pack up their tents or RVs and to leave the park in my opinion.
Although Vanover couldn’t put an exact number on how many residents were actually living in their vacation homes at the time of the government’s closure, she wanted to make one thing clear: “They are all vacation homes and everybody who lives in them are considered visitors,” she said. “If anybody needs to gather their personal belongings, we’re not going to deny them access. They can go do that. They just can’t spend the nights there or have barbecues during the day.
“They need to get in and get out.”
And so the vacation homes will remain vacant until Congress can compromise and end the shutdown, which entered its fifth day on Saturday.
Jihadin wrote: Since Kan jumped the gun. Your perception on what I said about you D is what you think I perceived from you D? In all our posts at each other over time you really think what I posted is what I really think on you D? Seriously? Think long and hard before you jump the gun like Kan did. I stand by my perceptions but I will acknowledge the other side to do I not.
Kan you forget on day one the of the Vets going into the parks that the Park Rangers didn't stop them due to being Vets themselves? I do believe I mention that somewhere in this multiple threads over the shut down.
Yet that did not stop Republicans from showing up and harassing them, now did it?
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
My sister is freinds with one of the women that was on the news about it. It's a couple in their mid 70's that were rousted out with a 24 hour notice from a home they had lived in for decades. They were so flustered, the husband left with just the clothes he was wearing. When they went back to get some clothes and other personal items, they were met with a barricade and armed guards.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
People build homes on the mall in DC?
No, what I am talking about are the people that leased federal land and built homes in parks out here around Lake Mead and other places. These have been their only homes for decades and suddenly they were served with a 24 hour notice to get out with barricades and armed guards going up behind them as they were driven out.
The link that Ouze provided suggests that the people leaving Lake Mead "and other places" are people with vacation homes.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
People build homes on the mall in DC?
No, what I am talking about are the people that leased federal land and built homes in parks out here around Lake Mead and other places. These have been their only homes for decades and suddenly they were served with a 24 hour notice to get out with barricades and armed guards going up behind them as they were driven out.
But we were talking about politicians yelling at the mean park employees in DC because veterans. So that really doesn't have anything to do with that.
Although these people getting kicked out of their "homes" is a bit of a falsehood. They are vacation homes, so it's really no different than telling people to pack up their tents or RVs and to leave the park in my opinion.
Although Vanover couldn’t put an exact number on how many residents were actually living in their vacation homes at the time of the government’s closure, she wanted to make one thing clear: “They are all vacation homes and everybody who lives in them are considered visitors,” she said. “If anybody needs to gather their personal belongings, we’re not going to deny them access. They can go do that. They just can’t spend the nights there or have barbecues during the day.
“They need to get in and get out.”
And so the vacation homes will remain vacant until Congress can compromise and end the shutdown, which entered its fifth day on Saturday.
It's not a vacation home my sister's friends were kicked out of, it was their home.
Jihadin wrote: D you playing "dumb? or Kan and you really have no idea on people being forced from their homes on federal lands or business being closed due to being on federal lands but not run by the federal government? If you both truly are uninformed or unwilling to see then I do believe I'm pretty much done with both you.
Let me paint a clear picture for you:
1) We were talking about a park employee getting yelled at by a politician on day 1 of the shutdown when the veterans arrived at the memorial.
2) The reply was that "those park rangers" should be getting yelled at because they kicked people out of their vacation homes.
3) These two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other, nothing at all.
Relapse wrote: It's not a vacation home my sister's friends were kicked out of, it was their home.
Well then, your own source indicates they were violating the terms of their lease, then.
The lease says to have an alternate residence, not which one to make their home.
As a side note, the woman in the story is my sister's friend.
It's almost like you have to have an alternative residence for cases like this when you might not be able to take advantage of your vacation home inside a national park.
I sure hope the people in tents and RVs have alternative residences as well...
Relapse wrote: The lease says to have an alternate residence, not which one to make their home.
As a side note, the woman in the story is my sister's friend.
I'm still having a hard time seeing the overwhelming tragedy in the fact a handful of people will have to spend a few weeks away from their vacation home; for which they are already getting an incredible sweetheart deal of $200 a month rent. Not when I lived in NYC in a shoebox for $900 a month, and homelessness was plan B.
I mean, I'm sorry they got kicked out. I don't personally think it was necessary. But let's put it into perspective, it's not like the government forced them onto the street.
The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.
I know I have a lot more knowledge of the story than you do considering what I put out here was told directly to my sister by the woman in the article. They have been friends for 20 years.
Relapse wrote: The lease says to have an alternate residence, not which one to make their home.
As a side note, the woman in the story is my sister's friend.
I'm still having a hard time seeing the overwhelming tragedy in the fact a handful of people will have to spend a few weeks away from their vacation home; for which they are already getting an incredible sweetheart deal of $200 a month rent. Not when I lived in NYC in a shoebox for $900 a month, and homelessness was plan B.
I mean, I'm sorry they got kicked out. I don't personally think it was necessary. But let's put it into perspective, it's not like the government forced them onto the street.
It pretty much did if their alternate residence is in another state and they use the "vacation homes" as their real permanent address.
The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.
I know I have a lot more knowledge of the story than you do considering what I put out here was told directly to my sister by the woman in the article. They have been friends for 20 years.
And?
YOU presented this story as though people are "being driven from their homes" with no place else to go. No, they're being asked to leave freaking vacation homes.
By the way, I'm starting to get the impression that the 'armed guards' were park rangers and not actually the jackbooted thugs you're trying to present.
Also, it sounds like maybe renting property from the government might not be such a hot idea, going forward. Although, again, $200 a month for lakefront property? I think I'd take that chance in a heartbeat.
The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.
I know I have a lot more knowledge of the story than you do considering what I put out here was told directly to my sister by the woman in the article. They have been friends for 20 years.
And?
YOU presented this story as though people are "being driven from their homes" with no place else to go. No, they're being asked to leave freaking vacation homes.
By the way, I'm starting to get the impression that the 'armed guards' were park rangers and not actually the jackbooted thugs you're trying to present.
No way to penetrate that brain of yours with facts as presented first hand by people at the center of the story. Enjoy your ignorance on this, it's clearly hard earned.
with veterans as backdrops or to harass Park Rangers who are doing their jobs--.
When those park rangers are driving people from homes they have lived in for decades, located on park land leased from the government, they deserve harrasment.
We were talking about people using veterans as backdrops and pawns.
Then we were talking about those same people yelling at park employees in the mall of america making full use of their veteran backdrops.
Then someone tried to justify that politician yelling at that park ranger because somebody somewhere got kicked out of their vacation home.
The Lake Mead properties are considered vacation homes; one of the lease requirements to own a plot is people must have an alternative residence.
I know I have a lot more knowledge of the story than you do considering what I put out here was told directly to my sister by the woman in the article. They have been friends for 20 years.
And?
YOU presented this story as though people are "being driven from their homes" with no place else to go. No, they're being asked to leave freaking vacation homes.
By the way, I'm starting to get the impression that the 'armed guards' were park rangers and not actually the jackbooted thugs you're trying to present.
No way to penetrate that brain of yours with facts as presented first hand by people at the center of the story. Enjoy your ignorance on this, it's clearly hard earned.
Maybe people will learn to obey the spirit of their leases in the future instead of just having "proxy real residences" and using their non-primary vacation residence as their primary residence.
Kanluwen wrote: I have a very hard time believing that there actually was only 24 hours notice.
That part, I think is plausible. The stories started going up on October 6th, and presumably they didn't go to the media and get stuff published immediately, and presumably the NPS didn't do it the very first day of the shutdown. I'd say that's pretty possible. I bet you can play with google and find an article even earlier than the 6th, an article zero if you will, to prove it if you were so inclined.
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
Negative on me myself taking a chance at 200 hundred a month on lake front property on Federal Land. Sounds great to have a back up house/ vacation home but with the housing market today if it becomes your primary and the government goes through another BS shutdown again your out on your arse in 24 hours. Do you really want to take the chance with that with your family?
Relapse wrote: Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.
But it's a lot different than the "they kicked them out of their primary residences" tone that the initial reporting implied.
Kanluwen wrote: I have a very hard time believing that there actually was only 24 hours notice.
That part, I think is plausible. The stories started going up on October 6th, and presumably they didn't go to the media and get stuff published immediately, and presumably the NPS didn't do it the very first day of the shutdown. I'd say that's pretty possible. I bet you can play with google and find an article even earlier than the 6th, an article zero if you will, to prove it if you were so inclined.
Relapse wrote: Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.
It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.
Relapse wrote: Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.
It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.
If it went down just like that, then I agree.
But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.
Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.
To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!
Relapse wrote: Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.
It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.
If it went down just like that, then I agree.
But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.
Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.
To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!
Yep, the story was only hours in her mind and when she told my sister. There really should have been some considerations given due their age so it wasn't so bad in their minds. People in Overton are pretty pissed about it, though.
Relapse wrote: Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.
It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.
If it went down just like that, then I agree.
But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.
Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.
To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!
Yep, the story was only hours in her mind and when she told my sister. There really should have been some considerations given due their age so it wasn't so bad in their minds. People in Overton are pretty pissed about it, though.
If for no other reason they should be mad about the loss in income from the folks that would normally be spending their money in the area right now who had to leave.
That's why the impact of the shutdown/slowdown/whatever down is much larger than the "only x% of federal employees are not working" talk that goes around.
Relapse wrote: Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.
I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.
It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.
If it went down just like that, then I agree.
But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.
Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.
To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!
Yep, the story was only hours in her mind and when she told my sister. There really should have been some considerations given due their age so it wasn't so bad in their minds. People in Overton are pretty pissed about it, though.
If for no other reason they should be mad about the loss in income from the folks that would normally be spending their money in the area right now who had to leave.
That's why the impact of the shutdown/slowdown/whatever down is much larger than the "only x% of federal employees are not working" talk that goes around.
That's one reason here in Utah, the state is taking charge of keeping the parks open for a bit. It's definitely a deep loss on many levels.
Ouze wrote: I think his broken promise to close Guantanamo bay is horrible
To touch on this part for a second, to be fair, he tried to close it, which would require moving the detainees somewhere, and then Congress went "OMG no, Not In My BackYard!!" as though these people were supervillains. Can't get rid of them, few countries are willing to take any of them, so there they stay.
I'm not saying he or his administration are blameless, but much like the current cluster...shenanigans, a lot of the blame falls Congress.
As an aside, I find these childish nicknames for the President to be unbecoming. I sure hope there aren't any "HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND YOU WILL SHOW THE PRESIDENCY RESPECT" style posts in the past of anyone using them ever so 'cleverly'. I certainly recall plenty of that from Republicans during Bush's terms.
Didn't mean to jump out in our convo D. This one is out in far left field. I mean really far left but kind of cool. I've like three Park Rangers coming to check something out. I am not involving LEO's because I am not taking a chance to have more guilt on my conscious. I've two wolf pups in my backyard. Its a fenced in backyard. How the Hell do I have two wolf pups in my backyard....
Screw that Airborne. Last thing I want is my scent on them. My scent on them might make mom not want them. Or mom out back to rip me a new one if I go out there and "play" with them. Besides the DNR guy says to ignore them and not screw with them at all. So my dogs are in the two port garage to do their business.
Ouze wrote: I think his broken promise to close Guantanamo bay is horrible
To touch on this part for a second, to be fair, he tried to close it, which would require moving the detainees somewhere, and then Congress went "OMG no, Not In My BackYard!!" as though these people were supervillains. Can't get rid of them, few countries are willing to take any of them, so there they stay.
I'm not saying he or his administration are blameless, but much like the current cluster...shenanigans, a lot of the blame falls Congress.
As an aside, I find these childish nicknames for the President to be unbecoming. I sure hope there aren't any "HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND YOU WILL SHOW THE PRESIDENCY RESPECT" style posts in the past of anyone using them ever so 'cleverly'. I certainly recall plenty of that from Republicans during Bush's terms.
Dude, don't interrup them, this is too fun to watch!
I'm over in Japan and am quite busy most of the time, but from where I'm sitting it sounds like the divide is growing wider and deeper in America. The politicians have got to learn to work together or this country is heading for some worse problems.
Also, for people arguing politics, don't assume the other side is lying, or trying to hurt whatever group of people, or hate America or are evil. That kind of thinking makes a rational debate impossible. Both sides see a problem and have very different ways of solving those problems. Unfortunately the paradigm gulf is growing wider every day. Soon we won't be able to discuss anything rationally without going into an argument about Democrats versus Republicans.
I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
As for OW, I liked them until they turned racist. These vets at the Mall, you go! (I'm a vet, btw.) However, the real problem is with the both parties in the congress and senate. If you think one side is angels and the other is evil, then you're deluded. This mess could have been prevented or solved much sooner if either party was acting like grown ups.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.
Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.
OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.
Kanluwen wrote: I have a very hard time believing that there actually was only 24 hours notice.
That part, I think is plausible. The stories started going up on October 6th, and presumably they didn't go to the media and get stuff published immediately, and presumably the NPS didn't do it the very first day of the shutdown. I'd say that's pretty possible. I bet you can play with google and find an article even earlier than the 6th, an article zero if you will, to prove it if you were so inclined.
Very plausible, actually. It's quite possible they didn't even realize they had to remove residents from the federal land until someone randomly noticed it in the law. While all agencies had to plan for the shutdown, I don't think any actually expected it to go beyond a day or two, and thus didn't really plan for anything beyond that. I know my own agency kept revising the furlough plans every day for that first week as they realized this might go on awhile. We don't have many supplies stockpiled, so things could get interesting if this goes on for another week.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm over in Japan and am quite busy most of the time, but from where I'm sitting it sounds like the divide is growing wider and deeper in America. The politicians have got to learn to work together or this country is heading for some worse problems.
The problem is that both parties keep gambling on a coin toss. They keep hoping that, come the next election cycle, their side will come up on all three coins (House, Senate, President) and then they can remake America into their personal perfect vision. And, until that happens, they're content to circle the drain and let the country slide even deeper (they're all rich, so what do they care?). I just hope that, when that final coin toss comes, it lands on edge and both parties get screwed.
MWHistorian wrote: OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.
And that is why we have the concept of jury nullification.
MWHistorian wrote: OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.
She was, in fact, arrested.
A willingness to be arrested is required in civil disobedience. If you are not okay with that then you should not be doing it.
After the arrest people then decide if the laws that got you arrested were stupid/petty/immoral and should be changed.
It's not the civil disobedience that changes laws, it's the response to it that decide if things change.
You might think that you are protesing some great American injustice, but the opinion of the person breaking the law doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is what people think about you after you break the law and face the result.
MWHistorian wrote: OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.
She was, in fact, arrested.
A willingness to be arrested is required in civil disobedience. If you are not okay with that then you should not be doing it.
After the arrest people then decide if the laws that got you arrested were stupid/petty/immoral and should be changed.
It's not the civil disobedience that changes laws, it's the response to it that decide if things change.
You might think that you are protesing some great American injustice, but the opinion of the person breaking the law doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is what people think about you after you break the law and face the result.
You do have a point there, the willingness to be arrested is a must.
But what I was originally trying to say was that we have got to find a way to discuss matters and come up with compromises or this country will sink.
I don't know if this would work, but for example: "Hey, Democrats, we'll let ya have your Obamacare if you stop trying to inact gun control. Deal?" Lame example I know, but SOMETHING has to happen soon and in a major way.
MWHistorian wrote: OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.
She was, in fact, arrested.
A willingness to be arrested is required in civil disobedience. If you are not okay with that then you should not be doing it.
After the arrest people then decide if the laws that got you arrested were stupid/petty/immoral and should be changed.
It's not the civil disobedience that changes laws, it's the response to it that decide if things change.
You might think that you are protesing some great American injustice, but the opinion of the person breaking the law doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is what people think about you after you break the law and face the result.
This. When it comes to civil disobedience, you have to be willing to pay the price for your actions.
I don't know if this would work, but for example: "Hey, Democrats, we'll let ya have your Obamacare if you stop trying to inact gun control. Deal?" Lame example I know, but SOMETHING has to happen soon and in a major way.
From what I've read, it seems like they went "Hey Democrats, we'll let ya have your policies if you adopt a more sane budget plan, like this one that Ryan put together". After what I assume was a while of haggling, that budget plan got passed. Now they are saying "Actually, you can't have your policies and what not like we talked about, unless you also do this". I know the ACA probably wasn't directly linked with the talks before, but that is basically what it seems like is happening.
"Hey Democrats, you can have your plan (which was really our plan) if you also do this for us, and this, and this, and trim back like most of the stuff you want to do."
"So you want us to just do what you want to do..."
"You finally noticed! That'd be just swell. Also, a sandwich and something to drink, and don't be stingy on the mustard."
How is anyone blaming the House of Representatives for this government shut-down? The House passed 6 budgets, the Senate passed 0. The House passed bills specifically to fund the children cancer research, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill to specifically fund National parks & Monuments, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill specifically to fund the Veterans' Death benefits, the Senate blocked it. This shut-down is created and perpetrated by the Senate & Executive Branch (Who decides where cuts take place, yet choose to leave all 100+ Federally operated Golf Courses open.)
On todays episode of President Barry Boo Boo, ole Stompy Feet orders barrycades replaced and reinforced.
The House repeatedly sent a budget with an addendum that the Senate refused. Sending it back 5 more times with the same language in place is evidence of poor pattern recognition from the House.
The House passed bills specifically to fund the children cancer research, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill to specifically fund National parks & Monuments, the Senate blocked it.
Sorry, but no, they don't get to fund just the little parts they like or are getting some bad press over.
The House passed a bill specifically to fund the Veterans' Death benefits, the Senate blocked it.
Funny, according to another thread on this very forum, both sides worked together to get this sorted out. You should let them know the benefits are being missed again.
This shut-down is created and perpetrated by the Senate & Executive Branch (Who decides where cuts take place, yet choose to leave all 100+ Federally operated Golf Courses open.)
Far as I've read, nobody 'chose' to leave the courses open. There are services and locales that are partially government funded, or that have funding remaining due to a recent influx of funding, but regardless of the cause it's all a red herring. It's misdirection. In a country and government the size of the US, there will ALWAYS be something else to point at. "OMG the vets are suffering but X is still open! Y is shut down but NObama still has his Z!"
Let's see who is talking about these courses... Heritage, TheBlaze, the Examiner... yeah, I'm smelling manufactured outrage. I thought that was "the Left's" job?!
On todays episode of President Barry Boo Boo, ole Stompy Feet orders barrycades replaced and reinforced.
The House passed bills specifically to fund the children cancer research, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill to specifically fund National parks & Monuments, the Senate blocked it.
Sorry, but no, they don't get to fund just the little parts they like or are getting some bad press over.
Why not? Besides the last five years... that is pretty much how it was done. Usually, you'd pass a budget with 13-18ish appropriate bills.
I'm glad i'm not a politician. Thats all i really have to say. Both sides have agendas that they are trying to get through and neither is letting the other side pass. Hopefully in the future we can avoid shutting down the government over political fighting.
Funding piecemeal is a DREAM COME TRUE for some conservative factions.
Oh, we can have DoD and weapons purchases and monuments but no enviornmental enforcement or food safety inspections or programs for the poor?
Yes please!
Approving the piecemeal bills would be incredibly short sighted for any legislator. Because next time it might be your favorite programs that, opps, we forgot to fund.
If someone wants to kill part of the Federal gov't (and I have my own list) they should put it in a bill and win the votes.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Funding piecemeal is a DREAM COME TRUE for some conservative factions.
Oh, we can have DoD and weapons purchases and monuments but no enviornmental enforcement or food safety inspections or programs for the poor?
Yes please!
Approving the piecemeal bills would be incredibly short sighted for any legislator. Because next time it might be your favorite programs that, opps, we forgot to fund.
If someone wants to kill part of the Federal gov't (and I have my own list) they should put it in a bill and win the votes.
Do you know the difference between Continuing Resolutions vs. Budget appropriations?
On todays episode of President Barry Boo Boo, ole Stompy Feet orders barrycades replaced and reinforced.
Are you 10?
Jihadin wrote: Rooting for the under dogs now. CCCOOOMMMEEEEE OONN TEA PARTY!!!! House and Senate to complacent. Being complacent gets one killed. Same thing year after year. Time for a Change we can believe in and the Tea Party actually making something known and felt. Suck it Obama and Reid. Say "Hi" to reps who listen to their constituents.
Rooting for the under dogs now. CCCOOOMMMEEEEE OONN TEA PARTY!!!! House and Senate to complacent. Being complacent gets one killed. Same thing year after year. Time for a Change we can believe in and the Tea Party actually making something known and felt. Suck it Obama and Reid. Say "Hi" to reps who listen to their constituents.
yeri wrote: I'm trying to convince a family friend who's a judge to issue aresst warrants on the president, the cabinet, every member of congress, and every lobbiest we can get our hands on for charges of high treason.
Please make sure you post on youtube the video of those warrants being serviced. I think the public would want to see that.
Now I'm curious, aren't U.S. judges also subject to a Duty of Restreint? Because if so, that would basically be a career suicide. I mean, even more so then it would already be.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.
Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.
I mean, unless veterans are above the law...
Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?
MWHistorian wrote: I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.
Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.
I mean, unless veterans are above the law...
Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?
Based on the links you provided, making the observation "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel..." somehow translates to heaping overwhelming on it?
MWHistorian wrote: I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.
Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.
I mean, unless veterans are above the law...
Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?
Based on the links you provided, making the observation "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel..." somehow translates to heaping overwhelming on it?
Poor analytical skill if I ever saw it.
Not really. Where do you get overwhelming from, by the way? I could easily provide other links where he played to the occupiers if you want, but it isn't that far in the past that people don't have a lot of trouble remembering Obama basically tallking up the protesters.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.
Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.
I mean, unless veterans are above the law...
Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?
Based on the links you provided, making the observation "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel..." somehow translates to heaping overwhelming on it?
Poor analytical skill if I ever saw it.
Not really. Where do you get overwhelming from, by the way? I could easily provide other links where he played to the occupiers if you want, but it isn't that far in the past that people don't have a lot of trouble remembering Obama basically tallking up the protesters.
You don't need to provide links, I know what he said and when he said it. I'm pointing out that you made a weak argument that has no bearing on the topic at hand. The President hasn't said anything about the "vets" march, good or bad, so how does the fact that he made positive remarks about the OWS protesters fit in this narrative?
MWHistorian wrote: I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.
Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.
I mean, unless veterans are above the law...
Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?
Based on the links you provided, making the observation "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel..." somehow translates to heaping overwhelming on it?
Poor analytical skill if I ever saw it.
Not really. Where do you get overwhelming from, by the way? I could easily provide other links where he played to the occupiers if you want, but it isn't that far in the past that people don't have a lot of trouble remembering Obama basically tallking up the protesters.
You don't need to provide links, I know what he said and when he said it. I'm pointing out that you made a weak argument that has no bearing on the topic at hand. The President hasn't said anything about the "vets" march, good or bad, so how does the fact that he made positive remarks about the OWS protesters fit in this narrative?
Just noting the fact he was cheering the occupiers on as the were trashing the cities, obstructing business and in general being donkey-caves, and how he is giving the vets the silent treatment as they are being arrested. No comments about them expressing frustration and all that.
Relapse wrote: Just noting the fact he was cheering the occupiers on as the were trashing the cities, obstructing business and in general being donkey-caves, and how he is giving the vets the silent treatment as they are being arrested. No comments about them expressing frustration and all that.
You're bridging on red herring territory here though. The fact that the President had positive things to say about a different group of people protesting a different thing in a different way a couple years ago has nothing to do with what is happening now. By the way, the related protest of truck drivers trying to clog one of the most heavily traveled roads around the District is obstructing business and interfering with the lives of residents of the area (like myself). They are being arrested for breaking the law, just like the OWS idiots were. Welcome to Civil Disobedience 101. They are being used as photo-op pawns by the same people that worked tirelessly to shut them out of the memorial the are so valiantly defending. Where were these Congresspeople the last 59 years before they built the memorial? Oh that's right, ignoring the legislation in the House proposed by a Democrat to get the memorial built.
You're definitely right the Vet's protest is being carried out differently than the occupiers. The vets aren't crapping on the streets and sidewalks and strewing trash about while interupting people's business. Add in the fact that they've gotten no kudos from Obama and that pretty much shows the difference between the two groups of protesters.
I think the truckers are also being asinine.
Relapse wrote: You're definitely right the Vet's protest is being carried out differently than the occupiers. The vets aren't crapping on the streets and sidewalks and strewing trash about while interupting people's business. Add in the fact that they've gotten no kudos from Obama and that pretty much shows the difference between the two groups of protesters.
I think the truckers are also being asinine.
Yup. Shows OWS was/is an astro-turf movement, and the vets are grass roots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I'm glad this act of civil disobedience helped change the political narrative in Washington.
Oh wait......
It's just the "Cliff Notes" of what's happening nationwide:
The Resident in Chief supports those who support his political views, and makes hell on everyone else.
Easy E wrote: Can you provide me some mainstream links of this Civil Disobedience elsewhere?
I'm actually very interested in the topic.
What specifically are you looking for? I'd be happy to see what I can dig up but the last couple of posts have me no longer sure if we're talking about the WW2 memorial or OWS.
Easy E wrote: I'm thinking Civil Disobedience related to the recent shutdown. I think I have a feel for what happened on the Mall. I'm curious about elsewhere.
There was a "million veteran march" on October 13th. There was coverage of this on CNN, which gives a useful timeline.
And, although it's been covered, apparently NPS rangers are flat out telling people who go to the mall that the memorial is closed "unless you're there for a first amendment purpose", and then when (obviously) visitors say they are, they are allowed in. I can't imagine the NPS really wants any part of this nonsense.
Although, in at least some places, they are starting to write tickets.
Easy E wrote: I'm thinking Civil Disobedience related to the recent shutdown. I think I have a feel for what happened on the Mall. I'm curious about elsewhere.
There was a "million veteran march" on October 13th. There was coverage of this on CNN, which gives a useful timeline.
And, although it's been covered, apparently NPS rangers are flat out telling people who go to the mall that the memorial is closed "unless you're there for a first amendment purpose", and then when (obviously) visitors say they are, they are allowed in. I can't imagine the NPS really wants any part of this nonsense.
Although, in at least some places, they are starting to write tickets.
The hypocrisy of the National Park Service via the Department of the Interior (under direct control of the Executive Branch - read as office of the Resident ) in dealing with the Veterans as opposed to dealing with OWS:
Easy E wrote: I'm thinking Civil Disobedience related to the recent shutdown. I think I have a feel for what happened on the Mall. I'm curious about elsewhere.
There was a "million veteran march" on October 13th. There was coverage of this on CNN, which gives a useful timeline.
And, although it's been covered, apparently NPS rangers are flat out telling people who go to the mall that the memorial is closed "unless you're there for a first amendment purpose", and then when (obviously) visitors say they are, they are allowed in. I can't imagine the NPS really wants any part of this nonsense.
Although, in at least some places, they are starting to write tickets.
So is all this civil disobedience standing up against government, or is it standing up "for" government? The only reason they are theoretically being restricted from the area is becaus eof the shutdown, therefore their is no government to stand up to. That's the problem.
The civil disobedience is taking place where they would normally be allowed, aren't you saying we need the Government to keep this places open; that's why we are here?
