RE: Barrycades

RE: Barrycades (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 7:32:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Is there anything at all the modern conservative movement won't whine about? How about a Republican Congresswoman complaining that nonessential personnel aren't at work? http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013/10/04/1287133?sac=fo.home Chuck Hagel admits most Pentagon furloughs were unnecessary About 400,000 people in all were inappropriately laid off... Most of the furloughed Department of Defense civilian employees will be recalled, according to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who acknowledged that government lawyers interpreted a Pentagon funding law passed on the eve of the shutdown too narrowly. It's almost as if there was something to "whine" about. K.

Kirata -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 7:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen With no Rangers on duty what is to stop these guys from taking endangered or threatened species or simply just exceeding their license limits? Absolutely. Everybody knows that Americans are criminals at heart. K.

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 8:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen With no Rangers on duty what is to stop these guys from taking endangered or threatened species or simply just exceeding their license limits? Absolutely. Everybody knows that Americans are criminals at heart. K. Did you know that Florida already has significant overfishing and poaching issues? That overfishing has basically eliminated trophy size marlin, swordfish and sailfish from the entire Gulf? That the Red Snapper is just the latest species of fish that is becoming rare due to overfishing in the Gulf? That Florida Bay is home to a number of critically endangered sea turtle species? Those species are so endangered a loss of a couple of females could be the tipping point between survival and extinction? Something as basic as the spiny lobster mini season where amateurs are allowed to take lobsters while diving results in dozens of citations each year and that is in a 2 day season.

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 8:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Is there anything at all the modern conservative movement won't whine about? How about a Republican Congresswoman complaining that nonessential personnel aren't at work? http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013/10/04/1287133?sac=fo.home Chuck Hagel admits most Pentagon furloughs were unnecessary About 400,000 people in all were inappropriately laid off... Most of the furloughed Department of Defense civilian employees will be recalled, according to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who acknowledged that government lawyers interpreted a Pentagon funding law passed on the eve of the shutdown too narrowly. It's almost as if there was something to "whine" about. K. Not that I'd ever doubt the ravings of a ridiculous right wing media site but I found several articles that quote much more extensively from Hagel's comments and never indicate anything like the accusation made in the nutjob partisan article. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/05/politics/government-shutdown-pentagon/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews quote: Hagel said Pentagon and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys concluded that the law allows the DOD to eliminate furloughs for employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale, well-being, capabilities and readiness of service members. "We immediately began working with the Department of Justice on how to implement it," said Hale, "and the Department expressed the opinion that the law does not permit a blanket recall of all DOD civilians. The Department of Justice did say that we could undertake a careful review of civilians who support members of the armed forces and determine who to recall. Needless to say, this is a difficult process and a very time consuming one." Hale said officials established a series of categories for civilians who will return to work and those who will not. The first group to return will be "accepted civilians, the ones that are working right now connected to military operations and the safety of life and property." "We will recall a category of civilians who provide ongoing support to military members on an ongoing basis like health care, family programs, training and maintenance and commissaries. We will also recall a second category of civilians whose work, if interrupted by a lapse for a substantial period, could cause future problems for military members. Falling in this category is acquisitions, program oversight, contract logistics, financial management, supply chain management," said Hale. So no, still nothing for some dumbass Republican to whine about.

Owner59 -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 8:39:25 PM)
" Everybody knows that Americans are criminals at heart. " Snark aside....we know that to many are selfish morons who don`t give a shit about other Americans. General reply......"The threat of destruction to the union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished from that of a robber" Abraham Lincoln, From his Copper Union Speech....Kinda a prophetic .......... and ironic considering the party of Lincoln is doing the extortion.

Kirata -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 9:54:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Chuck Hagel admits most Pentagon furloughs were unnecessary *Most of the furloughed Department of Defense civilian employees will be recalled, according to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who acknowledged that government lawyers interpreted a Pentagon funding law passed on the eve of the shutdown too narrowly. Not that I'd ever doubt the ravings of a ridiculous right wing media site but I found several articles that quote much more extensively from Hagel's comments and never indicate anything like the accusation made in the nutjob partisan article. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/05/politics/government-shutdown-pentagon/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews From your CNN link, the part you didn't quote of course... Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Saturday that "most [Department of Defense] civilians placed on emergency furlough during the government shutdown will be asked to return to work beginning next week*." Yes, very different. Nothing like the Examiner article at all. K.

Owner59 -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 10:03:18 PM)
[image]http://31.media.tumblr.com/2703fc81df0ec7457158f6a25ff5f3cd/tumblr_mu612hB6Kl1qewacoo1_500.jpg[/image]

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 10:04:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Chuck Hagel admits most Pentagon furloughs were unnecessary *Most of the furloughed Department of Defense civilian employees will be recalled, according to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who acknowledged that government lawyers interpreted a Pentagon funding law passed on the eve of the shutdown too narrowly. Not that I'd ever doubt the ravings of a ridiculous right wing media site but I found several articles that quote much more extensively from Hagel's comments and never indicate anything like the accusation made in the nutjob partisan article. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/05/politics/government-shutdown-pentagon/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews From your CNN link, the part you didn't quote of course... Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Saturday that "most [Department of Defense] civilians placed on emergency furlough during the government shutdown will be asked to return to work beginning next week." Yes, very different. Nothing like the Examiner article at all. K. Yes, very differently quote:* who acknowledged that government lawyers interpreted a Pentagon funding law passed on the eve of the shutdown too narrowly. That "admission" occurs in none of the other articles and most contain the same quote from Hagel saying that it took time to determine what the law covered. Now since that was the crux of your attack would you care to retract?

Kirata -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 10:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That "admission" occurs in none of the other articles and most contain the same quote from Hagel saying that it took time to determine what the law covered. Now since that was the crux of your attack would you care to retract? I object to you characterizing a simple observation of fact as an "attack," and if I was in your postion I'd be retracting my neck. "Our lawyers are now looking through the law that the president signed . to see if there's any margin here, or widening in the interpretation of the law of exempt versus non-exempt civilians," Hagel said in an article that the Defense Department's American Forces Press Service published Tuesday. That's from your own link, the article you initially whined about, calling it "whining." Honestly, the ability of some people to continue to squirm with so many nails in them deserves a place in the circus. Let me make this simple for you: Ellmers objected to the wholesale furloughs, they were reviewed, and 90% of the employees are being called back. Thank you very much for your time. K.

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/5/2013 10:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That "admission" occurs in none of the other articles and most contain the same quote from Hagel saying that it took time to determine what the law covered. Now since that was the crux of your attack would you care to retract? I object to you characterizing a simple observation of fact as an "attack," and if I was in your postion I'd be retracting my neck. "Our lawyers are now looking through the law that the president signed . to see if there's any margin here, or widening in the interpretation of the law of exempt versus non-exempt civilians," Hagel said in an article that the Defense Department's American Forces Press Service published Tuesday. That's from your own link, the article you initially whined about, calling it "whining." Honestly, the ability of some people to continue to squirm with so many nails in them deserves a place in the circus. Let me make this simple for you: Ellmers objected to the wholesale furloughs, they were reviewed, and 90% of the employees are being called back. Thank you very much for your time. K. BULLSHIT! The law was literally passed the day before the Congresswoman's whine fest. How the fuck did she or you expect an organization the size and complexity of the DoD to implement a brand new law literally overnight? Your pathetic attempts at a gotcha aside I really want to know how exactly do you expect the DoD to implement a law passed less than 24 hours before this dimwits complaint was made? This is why I despise the conservative movement, they are completely divorced from reality.

Kirata -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 1:21:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Let me make this simple for you: Ellmers objected to the wholesale furloughs, they were reviewed, and 90% of the employees are being called back. Your pathetic attempts at a gotcha aside I really want to know how exactly do you expect the DoD to implement a law *passed less than 24 hours before this dimwits complaint was made? This is why I despise the conservative movement, they are completely divorced from reality. It would benefit you to take The First Law of Holes more seriously. You're just making shit up. The news report you cited as an example of "whining" states that the law was passed on Monday, specifically to prevent the DoD from going forward with wholesale layoffs. But instead of holding off, the DoD went ahead with them anyway, possibly thinking it was in compliance. At issue may be interpretation of the phrase "are providing support* to members of the Armed Forces." Employees were furloughed based on whether they were considered *essential* to government operations. Obviously not quite the same thing, but let's not quibble. Ellmers' objection was raised in a letter to Hagel dated Friday, October 4, and reported at the link you cited under the same date. The law was not "passed less than 24 hours before" her objection. You just made that up. To be fair though, I think you're onto something with that idea of divorced from reality dimwits. K.

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 7:10:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Let me make this simple for you: Ellmers objected to the wholesale furloughs, they were reviewed, and 90% of the employees are being called back. Your pathetic attempts at a gotcha aside I really want to know how exactly do you expect the DoD to implement a law *passed less than 24 hours before this dimwits complaint was made? This is why I despise the conservative movement, they are completely divorced from reality. It would benefit you to take The First Law of Holes more seriously. You're just making shit up. The news report you cited as an example of "whining" states that the law was passed on Monday, specifically to prevent the DoD from going forward with wholesale layoffs. But instead of holding off, the DoD went ahead with them anyway, possibly thinking it was in compliance. At issue may be interpretation of the phrase "are providing support* to members of the Armed Forces." Employees were furloughed based on whether they were considered *essential* to government operations. Obviously not quite the same thing, but let's not quibble. Ellmers' objection was raised in a letter to Hagel dated Friday, October 4, and reported at the link you cited under the same date. The law was not "passed less than 24 hours before" her objection. You just made that up. To be fair though, I think you're onto something with that idea of divorced from reality dimwits. K. BULLSHIT yet again. Go back and read my first post on the subject. It was posted at 7 AM on Oct. 4 and references things told to the reported by the dimwitted Congresswoman on Thursday Oct. 3rd and whines about an action taken by the DoD on Tuesday Oct. 1 less than 24 hours after the law in question was passed. Now if you are done with the pathetic and wrong attempts to win an argument you lost the moment you decided to start flinging dumbassed untrue claims will you answer the fucking question, what precisely makes you and the dumbass whiny Congresswoman think the DoD could implement a brand new law that was signed into law less than 24 hours previously. Now about that law of holes, how is the air at the bottom of that hole you can't seem to stop digging?

TheHeretic -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 8:14:44 AM)
FR It seems to me, from what I'm seeing of this discussion, that if the first priority of the Obama admin was the faithful execution of their Constitutional duties, the new law would have initially been read as broadly as possible, and kept maximum staff on hand until the lawyers puzzled it out. Instead, their first priority was to create a public spectacle, and inflict as much pain and press release as possible, then try to look benevolent in calling the workers back.

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 8:25:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR It seems to me, from what I'm seeing of this discussion, that if the first priority of the Obama admin was the faithful execution of their Constitutional duties, the new law would have initially been read as broadly as possible, and kept maximum staff on hand until the lawyers puzzled it out. Instead, their first priority was to create a public spectacle, and inflict as much pain and press release as possible, then try to look benevolent in calling the workers back. The Constitution gives the President the duty to run the government as authorized by Congress. There is absolutely no Congressional authority to have any part of government functioning except for what is covered by the Antideficiency Act which spells out what is and isn't essential. This new law expands that definition in the DoD but the language is vague. What it says is that civilian DoD workers are essential if they "support" the troops. That could be read so broadly as to make every civilian in the DoD essential but it could also be read much more narrowly. I would assume the DoD dropped it on their General Counsel's office late on Monday when they got it. I'd assume there were also some other things whatever staff was working there had to deal with and they got an opinion based on precedents and other statutes as fast as they and Hagel is now implementing that decision which means that if some teabagger takes him to court over the decision he'll have some legal basis for his decision.

EdBowie -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 9:27:13 AM)
I've made my point abundantly clear, and backed it up with links to verifiable reports and pictures... the various attempts to portray President Obama as directly ordering impassible barricades put in place to keep people out, was a hoax. And your post is simply projection. quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Are you going for some sort of record in refusing to answer a simple question? Because you've had your 3 strikes. Well then tell us? What is the answer? I mean... do you really want to play "gotcha" question only to pounce when its not answered the way you want (or expect) the guy to answer it? If it was a rhetorical, then ask and answer it! If you have a point to make, make it without asking a question instead of trying to pick a fight.

TheHeretic -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 9:34:02 AM)
No, EdBowie, the hoax is the claims and distortions you are making about the topic. This is what happens when people decide that the cute little joke they saw from a facebook friend, got in a mass-email from a political hack club, or heard from a panelist on MSNBC is going to cut it in a forum where real people, of real opposing viewpoints will call bullshit on it, and them. Have a nice day.

Owner59 -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 9:54:15 AM)
It`s rovian tactics EdBowie. Make or commit indefensible offences or fuck ups.....and then blame your opponent and hope for the best.It`s Orwell-speak at it`s simplest.... Republicans shutter the gov.......say the democrats did that(even though they aren`t in charge).... Shut down a national park.....say the democrats did that.etc etc etc....just incert the topic and press play. "claims and distortions'' One of the things that frightens cons most is free thought and the freedom to exchange ideas and information freely. Frightened to know they can`t control perceptions or write the record.....And oh how they would love to if they could..... They`d be able to force us to believe that 2 and 2 didn`t equal 4.

DsBound -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 12:19:26 PM)
Im convinced that if the federal government wants to do something they can... what I want to know is why cant they protect our borders in the same fashion they are "protecting" the monuments and memorials?? Its funny in a very sad way.

Kirata -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 3:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen BULLSHIT yet again. [sm=mrpuffy.gif] K.

DomKen -> RE: Barrycades (10/6/2013 3:19:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen BULLSHIT yet again. [sm=mrpuffy.gif] K. So you cannot even summon the stones to acknowledge your many errors? Why does that not surprise me? For the record you accused me of being incorrect and based it on a source that was not part of the discussion and you failed to even check the source I actually used. You were wrong on all points. You thought you were clever enough to catch me in a gotcha and you managed to do nothing but prove the shoddiness of your claims. Now once again how exactly do you and the dimwitted whiny Congresswoman expect the DoD to implement a vaguely worded new law in less than 24 hours?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875