DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Well when I see a inept liberal running the country and approves of not paying death benefits to our military's war dead, what else is there to see?

well, lessee.....you ought to be able to see that the President isn't a 'liberal', but a moderate progressive. Second, you should be able to know, or at least Google the fact that the GOP House was warned, specifically, that Death Bennies would not be payable under a shutdown(thank, by the way to Fisher House, a charity I have pushed and contributed for years!!!). Finally, you should know that this whole thing wouldn't have happened had Boehner not welshed on the deal negotiated in July. And, those are just the obvious points.

and, by the way, suggesting that Obama 'approves' of not paying death benefits is a flat-out lie. Once again, why do you have to resort to lying to try to make your point? So much for your personal integrity.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well when I see a inept liberal running the country and approves of not paying death benefits to our military's war dead, what else is there to see?

well, lessee.....you ought to be able to see that the President isn't a 'liberal', but a moderate progressive. Second, you should be able to know, or at least Google the fact that the GOP House was warned, specifically, that Death Bennies would not be payable under a shutdown(thank, by the way to Fisher House, a charity I have pushed and contributed for years!!!). Finally, you should know that this whole thing wouldn't have happened had Boehner not welshed on the deal negotiated in July. And, those are just the obvious points.

and, by the way, suggesting that Obama 'approves' of not paying death benefits is a flat-out lie. Once again, why do you have to resort to lying to try to make your point? So much for your personal integrity.

Lie? When he can sign one of his infamous executive orders in all of 30 seconds it is directly in his lap. Even the major news outlets are picking up on this. So stop making a fool of yourself by trying to carry Obamas water.

woodchip wrote: Lie? When he can sign one of his infamous executive orders in all of 30 seconds it is directly in his lap. Even the major news outlets are picking up on this. So stop making a fool of yourself by trying to carry Obamas water.

sorry, no Exec order created can make funds appear when new funds are banned by law. Read the pertinent laws, please, and STOP LYING!!

a lucid summation, but one can go to Cornell Law.edu and get the whole breakdown:

When there is a spending gap, aka a government shutdown, the executive branch has specific measures it has to take that are regulated by an act of Congress known as the AntiDefeciency Act of 1982. It lays out in detail what the agencies can and cannot do and details the furloughing of employes based on essential and non-essential status. The Executive cannot function beyond those perimeters, period. This is laid bare in both the Constitution (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”) and law.

New funds? Like the funds to keep the chefs on payroll for the executive dining room? Or the funds to barricade national monuments?

read the specifics, I gave you a site to go to that spells it out.

Hell, here's a link to the parts around parks and such. Then, feel free to search for other stuff to your heart's delight:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.5

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You are constantly second guessing, and 'revealing' the real motives of conservatives and Christians and men and anyone who opposes Obama.....

sort of like how you and Woody and CUDA constantly tell us how 'liberals' think, as if you had the first clue?

We all second guess others here.

I second guess you all the time, then I post evidence of how my guess is more in line with reality than your pulled-it-from-behind-your-sphincter declaration that spurred me to challenge it.

Then you leave the thread altogether or try to restate your original assertions, moving the goal posts, to try and avoid losing to the challenge.

then why were you whining about someone else 'second-guessing' you, if you claim we all do it?

callmeslick wrote:read the specifics, I gave you a site to go to that spells it out.

Hell, here's a link to the parts around parks and such. Then, feel free to search for other stuff to your heart's delight:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.5

From your link:

"that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:"

Tell me slick, just where do you see any of the above referencing blocking off parking lots, war memorials, roadside turnoffs or treating park visitors like they are crimminals because of a budget concern ?

because non of those things prevents essential research, nor prevents anything essential for that matter. You realize that this section I linked to was to allow you to jump elsewhere, because the words pertinent to this situation within it are 'except for emergencies', because the funding created an 'emergency'. You have to do a bit of searching to find the actual stuff that would pertain to a lack of fund allocation, but it is there, to be found.

callmeslick wrote:then why were you whining about someone else 'second-guessing' you, if you claim we all do it?

I didn't. I challenged her assumptions and logic. She tried to disown responsibility for her own assertions by saying she wasn't going to second guess someone.

I never said a single thing in judgement of anyone's "second guessing" . I just pointed out that she does it all the time so she shouldn't be trying to hide behind her supposed reluctance to do so.

callmeslick wrote:because non of those things prevents essential research, nor prevents anything essential for that matter.

Right and since they are not essential, they need not be closed. Enough of defecting from the Death Benefits. Funny how 2 days after the budget shutdown, 450 million dollars was found to give to NPR radio. I guess the radio station was more important than fallen soldiers families getting their money. So just where did NPR's money come from?

Gee, I could have sworn slick said Obama has the constitutional power to pay all obligations…

Now we have 2 choices here…

1. slick doesn’t know what the ★■◆● he is talking about.
2. The president is derelict in his duties.


And yes….all of the above is a definite possibility.

I vote "all of the above"

Spidey wrote:Gee, I could have sworn slick said Obama has the constitutional power to pay all obligations…

debt obligations(outstanding bonds that come do). Nothing else.

callmeslick wrote:way to go, House!! Stock market opens down around 200 points(Dow index)......and wait until these loons start playing games with debt payments by the US. On the latter, I really hope that Obama uses the constitutional power granted to him and just enables all debts to be paid.

I guess you left out the bonds part.

OBTW it's "due" not "do"....Mr. Kettle

That's too freaking bad that they don't get their death benefits. National park is closed? Visit a state park. Your side wanted a shutdown, so stop ★■◆●ing whining about it.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Open your eyeballs. I'm not the principal. I did not make the decision. I don't gave a damn because I don't have kids in that school. But I'm not going to second guess that principal's reasons either. I can only theorize. The principal "stated" the parents were the reason and no one has countered it. If you don't like it, hop on over and take it up with the school district like a good red-blooded American.

It is your theory I have taken issue with. The principal didn't claim to have no choice in the decision...you invented that condition.

And since when do you not second guess other people's motives?!?

You are constantly second guessing, and 'revealing' the real motives of conservatives and Christians and men and anyone who opposes Obama.....

You're second guessing about the principal's motives big time yourself. Quit mouthing your partisanship until the real reason is revealed. My "theory", that you turned your nose up at wasn't a slam against conservatives or Christians in this case, but yours definitely was against liberals.

CobGobbler wrote:That's too freaking bad that they don't get their death benefits. National park is closed? Visit a state park. Your side wanted a shutdown, so stop **** whining about it.

and, boy are they starting to crack under the pressure.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:way to go, House!! Stock market opens down around 200 points(Dow index)......and wait until these loons start playing games with debt payments by the US. On the latter, I really hope that Obama uses the constitutional power granted to him and just enables all debts to be paid.

I guess you left out the bonds part.

OBTW it's "due" not "do"....Mr. Kettle

I guess all this uncertainty is just killing the Market


DJIA 15,126.07 +323.09 +2.18%


Maybe Slick isn't as slick as he thought

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Open your eyeballs. I'm not the principal. I did not make the decision. I don't gave a damn because I don't have kids in that school. But I'm not going to second guess that principal's reasons either. I can only theorize. The principal "stated" the parents were the reason and no one has countered it. If you don't like it, hop on over and take it up with the school district like a good red-blooded American.

It is your theory I have taken issue with. The principal didn't claim to have no choice in the decision...you invented that condition.

And since when do you not second guess other people's motives?!?

You are constantly second guessing, and 'revealing' the real motives of conservatives and Christians and men and anyone who opposes Obama.....

You're second guessing about the principal's motives big time yourself.

Of course I am. Because so far the only rationale (using that term very loosely) given for it was your loopy excuse that the principal has no choice but to accommodate the alleged parents request. I know that is untrue and I can't think of any good reason for her request.


Can you think of a good reason for her telling the policeman to stop showing up in uniform?

The best I can think of is the report is a mis-print. The policeman has been showing up undercover in civilian dress...maybe looking very rough and 'street' and the principal requested that he don't show up OUT OF UNIFORM if he is going to be armed...
That would make sense.

Feel free to try to make some sense of it.

tunnelcat wrote:Quit mouthing your partisanship until the real reason is revealed. My "theory", that you turned your nose up at wasn't a slam against conservatives or Christians in this case, but yours definitely was against liberals.

I never said your 'theory' was a slam. You really don't read with any degree of comprehension.

I said in the past you haven't been shy about second guessing people and gave those groups as an example. And said I think you are making excuses for yourself...when you said that you don't want to second guess the principle in this case...I stand by that suspicion.
I find that to be a bizarre change of behavior for you...if it is true.
But even if it is true that you decided to change your ways it doesn't explain why you created, and inserted, the condition that the principal has no choice but to ask the policeman to do what ever the parent asks no matter how ridiculous the request! Parents are in school offices everyday trying to get staff to accommodate their wishes and being turned down. The staff has plenty of authority to tell the parent they are wrong about something.

And then you suggest there is some kind of viable threat level of school shooters disarming uniformed policemen and shooting up the children to further support the principals decision.
For someone who doesn't want to insert their opinion into it you certainly have!

And hell yes I judge the decision she made as a stupid one. If it is as reported it is a stupid decision. I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation but I sincerely doubt one will ever be offered, by the parties involved or by you.

Will Robinson wrote:
Of course I am. Because so far the only rationale (using that term very loosely) given for it was your loopy excuse that the principal has no choice but to accommodate the alleged parents request. I know that is untrue and I can't think of any good reason for her request.

That's what the article said was the given reason, not mine. Do I need to re-quote the thing for you? As for the logic of that decision, who knows? You've obviously never been in charge of a whole school full of children that becomes YOUR responsibility everyday until they go back home to their parents. Some parents DO get involved in their child's education sometimes and like to get the principal involved. Emotional thinking about their child's safety can make parents come up with some pretty whacky decisions. I could only came up with the policeman losing control of his handgun idea because nothing else makes sense about the decision, and that isn't all that plausible either.

God forbid the school would ever have to call the police.

"Hello 911, this is so and so school, we have a problem...but would you mind leaving your guns at the station".

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Of course I am. Because so far the only rationale (using that term very loosely) given for it was your loopy excuse that the principal has no choice but to accommodate the alleged parents request. I know that is untrue and I can't think of any good reason for her request.

That's what the article said was the given reason, not mine. Do I need to re-quote the thing for you? ...

Yes TC, please quote it for me because I just went back and read both articles linked on the first page and re-read your comments.
You said: "so the principle's are reacting the only way they can"

It sure looks to me like you interjected that notion all on your own. No where does the spokesman for the school district say anything about the principal having no other choice in their reaction to the situation.

They could react in a number of ways and almost any other reaction would be more rational than the fear that the policeman would lose his gun to a school shooter.

Then you used the Newton Connecticut school shooting as an example. I would bet you that every parent of a child killed that day in Newton wishes this policeman had been in uniform with his gun in plain view when Adam Lanza showed up in their school and shot their child!

Your logic is just beyond reasonable and why you feel compelled to defend/offer supporting foundation for the ridiculous decision is escaping me.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Of course I am. Because so far the only rationale (using that term very loosely) given for it was your loopy excuse that the principal has no choice but to accommodate the alleged parents request. I know that is untrue and I can't think of any good reason for her request.

That's what the article said was the given reason, not mine. Do I need to re-quote the thing for you? ...

Yes TC, please quote it for me because I just went back and read both articles linked on the first page and re-read your comments.
You said: "so the principle's are reacting the only way they can"

It sure looks to me like you interjected that notion all on your own. No where does the spokesman for the school district say anything about the principal having no other choice in their reaction to the situation.

If the principal WAS actually following the wishes of the parents, which neither you or I don't know for sure, THEN he or she had no other options. The principal DID state that reason. You can't fight the illogical fears of a bunch of parents who fear for their children when that principal is kowtowing to their wishes and is responsible for everything that happens at school.

Will Robinson wrote:Then you used the Newton Connecticut school shooting as an example. I would bet you that every parent of a child killed that day in Newton wishes this policeman had been in uniform with his gun in plain view when Adam Lanza showed up in their school and shot their child!

Your logic is just beyond reasonable and why you feel compelled to defend/offer supporting foundation for the ridiculous decision is escaping me.

I repeat, it's not MY logic and yes, it is a stretch. But the world is full of illogical decisions, so I'm only making a guess as to the reason behind this one. If you're so insulted that some principal made an illogical decision, then hop on over and give that principal a piece of your mind. It'd be a lot more productive to vent your rage at the idiot who MADE the decision than blaming me and all liberals, like we're all to blame for the whole stupid affair. And you don't know the outcome between an officer armed with only a semi-automatic pistol and Adam Lanza who had an assault rifle. I'd say the assault rifle would have had a big edge in a surprise attack.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Of course I am. Because so far the only rationale (using that term very loosely) given for it was your loopy excuse that the principal has no choice but to accommodate the alleged parents request. I know that is untrue and I can't think of any good reason for her request.

That's what the article said was the given reason, not mine. Do I need to re-quote the thing for you? ...

Yes TC, please quote it for me because I just went back and read both articles linked on the first page and re-read your comments.
You said: "so the principle's are reacting the only way they can"

It sure looks to me like you interjected that notion all on your own. No where does the spokesman for the school district say anything about the principal having no other choice in their reaction to the situation.

If the principal WAS actually following the wishes of the parents, which neither you or I don't know for sure, THEN he or she had no other options.

Once again you insist that the principal had no choice but to appease the parents request. That is absolute bullcrap.

Ask any principal to share stories of stupid parent requests they refused! They do it almost daily!
Then, after they tell you a bunch of the stories where they refused a stupid parent request, ask them how they were able to get away with refusing the requests, ask them what authority they had to refuse them.
At that point, the incredulous look on their face, that is the same look I get reading the things you often say....

tunnelcat wrote:... And you don't know the outcome between an officer armed with only a semi-automatic pistol and Adam Lanza who had an assault rifle. I'd say the assault rifle would have had a big edge in a surprise attack.

I know the outcome of Adam Lanza with his weapons and NO POLICEMAN WITH A GUN present!
Do you really mean to tell me if you asked the parents of the children Lanza shot that day if they would have preferred an armed policeman had been there dropping his child off they would say "Ohh No! Lanza might have taken the policeman's gun and made things worse!"

<-------- I'm making that face right now!

Will Robinson wrote:Once again you insist that the principal had no choice but to appease the parents request. That is absolute bullcrap.

You don't know that, period. All we have is that statement in print. Until we hear another reason, quit assuming the decision someone else made, other than you of course, is bullcrap. Why is this even kinking your hair so much? It doesn't even affect you personally. The only reason I keep answering this partisan bravado rant you started is that you keep right up there criticizing all liberals as stupid morons like a broken record, all for the lame decision of one person, of which we haven't a clue about their political persuasion anyway.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Once again you insist that the principal had no choice but to appease the parents request. That is absolute bullcrap.

You don't know that, period. All we have is that statement in print. Until we hear another reason, quit assuming the decision someone else made, ..:

I do know otherwise. And I encourage you to go ask any public school administrator and ask them if they have the authority to refuse a parents request. They will think you haven't finished asking the whole question...then they will think you are drunk or something...but please, go ask a few.

And I don't remember indicting all liberals...or any group of them for the assertion you made. I'm pretty sure I have been singling you out for the suggestion that the principal had no other choice.

I take only you to task for that and the principal for CHOOSING to ask the policeman to stop showing up in uniform.