DescentBB

Obama Sends More Security Guards to Defend Against WWII Vets Visiting the Monument Than He Sent to Defend Ambassador in Bengahzi

http://washingtonexaminer.com/shutdown- ... le/2536710

As a politician you would only dare to do something like that with impunity because the Mainstream Media is willing to play along.

OUCH.

Ya but those 90+ year old WW2 vets are bigger bad-asses then those losers that attacked Benghazi

Will, is Obama really directly responsible for both of those occurrences? It may be fun/catchy to put it that way, but I think if that statement is taking liberties with the truth it ultimately fails to do justice to either event. I appreciate the disgusting irony. Is it really a personal irony, or is it a governmental irony?

I'd like to lay in to the ★■◆●(s) that figure we can shoot our debt up and up and up with various and sundry programs and spending, but when we hit a ceiling it's the functioning of the government itself that shuts down. Can someone explain to me how that is not just a child throwing a fit in order to get their way, disguised as adult business?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Will, is Obama really directly responsible for both of those occurrences? It may be fun/catchy to put it that way, but I think if that statement is taking liberties with the truth it ultimately fails to do justice to either event. I appreciate the disgusting irony. Is it really a personal irony, or is it a governmental irony?

According to other reports on it the National Park Service was told by The White House to block access. So the way politics works is Obama owns responsibility for it even if it was some underling political adviser acting on his own. The way our current mainstream media operates he won't ever be challenged by them about it....

It can't just be business as usual to install barricades where they never used them before to cordon off an open space park....or to close the school that isn't a part of government at all!

It's interesting to see the political theater play out. But it's frustrating and sad that the media decided a long time ago to be promoters for the play and sometimes a part of the cast instead of standing back and shouting boo at any bad actors regardless of party affiliation.

A employee pretty well summed up the NPS about the closure of the Claude Moore Colonial Farm:


She added: “In all the years I have worked with the National Park Service, first as a volunteer for six years in Richmond where I grew up, then as an NPS employee at the for eight very long years and now enjoyably as managing director for the last 32 years — I have never worked with a more arrogant, arbitrary and vindictive group representing the NPS.

I'm thinking that it didn't run in a major outlet because they likely fact-check first.

I'm thinking you're guessing

callmeslick wrote:I'm thinking that it didn't run in a major outlet because they likely fact-check first.

Yea. You're probably correct. They checked, it was true, so they didn't run it.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. This story has been run in major news outlets, like here on Reuters. After reading both articles this looks a publicity stunt, Republicans capitalizing on the unfortunate timing of a long planned tour by veterans. Smart, quick thinking on their part. Too bad it doesn't seems to be getting the desired exposure. The Washington Examiner site has much stronger language than Reuters and the comments on the article read like a conservative circlejerk. Just because the readership of the Examiner is lower than Reuters doesn't make it any less mainstream or have any less bias. Clearly the attempt to draw parallel between the monument closing and Benghazi is for click-bait since they are comparing apples to, well not oranges, more like apples to fish sticks. Let's hear it for reinforcement of confirmation bias! WooHoo!

vision wrote:I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. This story has been run in major news outlets, like here on Reuters. After reading both articles this looks a publicity stunt, Republicans capitalizing on the unfortunate timing of a long planned tour by veterans. Smart, quick thinking on their part. Too bad it doesn't seems to be getting the desired exposure. The Washington Examiner site has much stronger language than Reuters and the comments on the article read like a conservative circlejerk. Just because the readership of the Examiner is lower than Reuters doesn't make it any less mainstream or have any less bias. Clearly the attempt to draw parallel between the monument closing and Benghazi is for click-bait since they are comparing apples to, well not oranges, more like apples to fish sticks. Let's hear it for reinforcement of confirmation bias! WooHoo!

It's a stunt and quick thinking shutting down an open air location, sending government employees down to man barricades where none are needed....where government employees are allegedly needed now because, due to the shut down, there are no government employees available to....what?.... let the barricades not be there!?! WTF?!?

And shutting out a completely private school run and funded completely by private enterprise as if the so called government shut down made it necessary.

And if it was the other side doing it the little rightwinger media outlets that are putting it out there would be the only ones not having fun with the ironic apples to oranges Bengahzi analogy.

The purpose? It is funny watching them scramble to justify it and watching so called journalists pretend its all quite innocent. 'Reporting' that only the R side is pulling stunts...

Will Robinson wrote:It's a stunt and quick thinking shutting down an open air location, sending government employees down to man barricades where none are needed....where government employees are allegedly needed now because, due to the shut down, there are no government employees available to....what?.... let the barricades not be there!?! WTF?!?

And shutting out a completely private school run and funded completely by private enterprise as if the so called government shut down made it necessary.

Neither you nor I, or apparently either media source knows the specifics of why barricades were decided upon or why the school was closed. The difference is, the source you read is written to inflame you regardless of that missing information (it worked too). The Reuters article is presented as fairly neutral. And apparently you didn't read the article because it was me, not Reuters who used the word stunt. That was my commentary, I posted, in the Ethics and Commentary section of this forum.

I agree, barricades and a school closing sound suspicious, but no diplomats died because of it. Not even close.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It's a stunt and quick thinking shutting down an open air location, sending government employees down to man barricades where none are needed....where government employees are allegedly needed now because, due to the shut down, there are no government employees available to....what?.... let the barricades not be there!?! WTF?!?

And shutting out a completely private school run and funded completely by private enterprise as if the so called government shut down made it necessary.

Neither you nor I, or apparently either media source knows the specifics of why barricades were decided upon or why the school was closed. The difference is, the source you read is written to inflame you regardless of that missing information (it worked too). The Reuters article is presented as fairly neutral. And apparently you didn't read the article because it was me, not Reuters who used the word stunt. That was my commentary, I posted, in the Ethics and Commentary section of this forum.

I agree, barricades and a school closing sound suspicious, but no diplomats died because of it. Not even close.

Vision, I did read both articles. I did use the word stunt because you used it. I don't see the significance of you being the source of that description. I used it because I was talking to you about what you said...

I have read numerous reports on the subject and I find your reluctance to say these closings are anything more than suspicious is very generous on your part. Mt Vernon was barricaded by the government even though it is a completely privately run and funded historic attraction. The parking lot is co-owned by the foundation and the National Park Service so the political stunt team blocked it off so no one can visit! The official website advertised "no shut down here" but they hadn't anticipated government employees showing up with barricades to 'work' the parking lot that NEVER has government employees working there!

You call it suspicious if you want, I'll call it what it is.

Curious how there are paid park employee's watching to see if anyone crosses the barricades at the WW2 memorial or Mt Vernon. I'm just wondering how many employee's from the park service are around when those places are normally open.

Yes, this smells like the same kind of thing that happened when sequestration went into effect. (that being a publicity stunt to make it hurt more that is might otherwise)

Will Robinson wrote:You call it suspicious if you want, I'll call it what it is.

I don't think it's part of a grand conspiracy. I think the two examples are anecdotal and not representative of wider policies and practices. This is probably why it isn't getting too much attention. Personally I would like to know more details before I blame anyone for anything.

The Washington Examiner. A right wing propaganda paper. Suuuuuuure.

They didn't mention that all those Vets were finally allowed into the memorial, by congressmen, Republican Congressmen, who pushed aside the barricades. That least they earned their pay. However, I guess they didn't want to insult the very war vets who probably voted for them.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local ... 52471.html

As to the question of "why" open air memorials have to be closed off during the shutdown? Well, at the very least to protect them from vandals, thus the few guards on hand. The Lincoln Memorial already had some nutcase throw paint all over it a few weeks back.

Yea...good thing they are protecting the parking spots along the road to Mt Vernon then.....god forbid some terrorist might drop some freshly chewed bubble gum or something!

They blocked frikken parking spots on the side of the George Washington Parkway at Mt Vernon. There are no facilities there....no parking attendants....no bathrooms....nothing but a few stripes of white paint on the blacktop!

'Due to the shutdown' they sent paid employees out to gather barricades and had them block access to privately managed historical landmarks and monuments that never have government employees working in. With NO OTHER MOTIVE OR NECESSISITY than to inconvenience and anger citizens.

We must have mis heard Obama in his campaign. I swear I heard him say he would be the "post partisan" President. Apparently he must have said he will be the MOST partisan President!

Send those House tea party insurrectionists out to clean, maintain and guard our national treasures then. They're getting paid anyway.

tunnelcat wrote:Send those House tea party insurrectionists out to clean, maintain and guard our national treasures then. They're getting paid anyway.

So are the hacks who staged the shut down of parking lots....

Will Robinson wrote:...inconvenience and anger citizens.

It can't imagine why this is angering you. This reaction is totally out of place, you know that? You are mad because someone got paid to put up a barricade? Really? Again, this seems very trivial. From a legal perspective this is a good idea in case someone hurt themselves on government property during the shut down. The government can say "park was closed, we had signs, you shouldn't have been there." In this case, paying someone to put up a barricade or sign is way cheaper than a lawsuit. I call that efficient use of government funds and smart risk analysis.

Who knows? Somebody's playing hardball, obviously, since Mt. Vernon is privately owned. If that's the case, those who own and run it can go over, throw down those barricades, open it up on their own and challenge the feds to re-close the place. Might make good press. Better yet, get a few of those freshmen House tea partiers to go over and open it up and man the park for a while. They might as well since they're getting a salary from me for doing nothing.

tunnelcat wrote: They might as well since they're getting a salary from me for doing nothing.

you might wish to read up on that little topic. because your wrong as usual

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...inconvenience and anger citizens.

It can't imagine why this is angering you. This reaction is totally out of place, you know that? You are mad because someone got paid to put up a barricade? Really? Again, this seems very trivial. From a legal perspective this is a good idea in case someone hurt themselves on government property during the shut down. The government can say "park was closed, we had signs, you shouldn't have been there." In this case, paying someone to put up a barricade or sign is way cheaper than a lawsuit. I call that efficient use of government funds and smart risk analysis.

I'm not angry that someone earned income to put up the barricades.
I'm fully aware of WHY they were paid though, and that motive is what aggravates me.
I also don't believe you missed the inference in my pointing this all out...

I find it very funny that the alleged motive was because there were going to be no employees around during a shutdown so they needed to keep people from using the parking spots!
Especially since there are NEVER any employees there in the first place!

However, if we take the logic you conjured up to avoid seeing the stunt for what it obviously is, and instead twist logic on its ear to come up with praise for the government you would have to say the whole time they have allowed the space to be open to the public without supervision they were welcoming a lawsuit!
And once the shutdown is ended should they then hire more workers so someone will be there watching people park to avoid lawsuits?!? How about all the other parking spots in Washington? More jobs?

Lol, what a total stretch of logic you just accomplished! Stretched way to thin to make good sense in my mind.

Here's a thought...when you have to come up with stupid reasons to justify someone's behavior maybe it's time to stop protecting them.

Will Robinson wrote:Lol, what a total stretch of logic you just accomplished! Stretched way to thin to make good sense in my mind. Here's a thought...when you have to come up with stupid reasons to justify someone's behavior maybe it's time to stop protecting them.

I'm not trying to protect them, I'm trying to not jump to irrational conclusions. Again, you and I have no idea what the reason for the barricades were, legal, or nefarious. I'm inclined to think this is just part of policy (perhaps a silly policy) whereas you seem perfectly content to believe this is some evil ploy by tent-fingered Obama-loving maniacs. I'll say it a third time, I would like to know more since simply seeing barricades is not enough to make a judgement. And here is another thing, some of these "unmanned" parks actually have employees who regularly check in to the locations, like rangers.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Lol, what a total stretch of logic you just accomplished! Stretched way to thin to make good sense in my mind. Here's a thought...when you have to come up with stupid reasons to justify someone's behavior maybe it's time to stop protecting them.

I'm not trying to protect them, I'm trying to not jump to irrational conclusions. Again, you and I have no idea what the reason for the barricades were, legal, or nefarious. I'm inclined to think this is just part of policy (perhaps a silly policy) whereas you seem perfectly content to believe this is some evil ploy by tent-fingered Obama-loving maniacs. I'll say it a third time, I would like to know more since simply seeing barricades is not enough to make a judgement. And here is another thing, some of these "unmanned" parks actually have employees who regularly check in to the locations, like rangers.

Mt Vernon is a fully staffed operation, by private company, not government, that is open during the shut down!
They own the location. They co-own some parking with the National Park Service.
I seriously doubt the government patrols the parking spots and bus turnaround on the side of the Parkway.

Do you really believe someone said:
"Damn we have a shut down coming! We better get out there and block off parking lots that we own right away! Let's start with the ones tourists use. We will get to all the hundreds of other lots that only we locals use....uh....well...."?!?!

Will Robinson wrote:Do you really believe someone said...

I'll point it out again, Mt Vernon looks like a peculiar, isolated incident and is not indicative of the wider shutdown activity. Regarding the barricades, it may be simply part of policy, even if that policy is idiotic. This is probably a good time to review the policies and practices regarding park shutdowns. It is also possible this was a mistake, because those things happen. And of course it could be a conspiracy, but that is not likely. The point I've been making this whole time is this:

• The news article is inflammatory (and it obviously worked, you reposted, I clicked, and advertisers made more money. Good job Will, they love you!).
• The examples in the article are anecdotal and don't appear to be representative of the shutdown of all parks.
• There is not enough information in the article to make a reasoned evaluation of the situation.
• Your claim the news story is ignored by liberal media is false (I'm sure you consider everything not right-wing as evil liberal media though).
• I would like to know more. I tend to view things like this as the result of overly-protective policy due to our highly litigious society, or incompetence, but almost never the result of malice.

And that's it. I guess that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal tool, right?

tunnelcat wrote:Send those House tea party insurrectionists out to clean, maintain and guard our national treasures then. They're getting paid anyway.

You do realize it was the Chair of the RNC that offered to pay to keep the WW@ memorial open. I guess Obama didn't want to be upstaged so he re-opened it. Funny how we don't see the Dems offering to pay to open a closed facility. They missed a big photo op when Obama closed the white house to children. The Dems could of offered to foot the bill for that but I guess politics before the well-being of our most precious assets...for all they bring children into the room when they want to make a point.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: They might as well since they're getting a salary from me for doing nothing.

you might wish to read up on that little topic. because your wrong as usual

Congress is getting paid, even though "most other" government employees are being furloughed and NOT PAID. Congress is doing nothing but arguing. I'd say that's doing nothin'. Or did you mistake what I was being snarky about?

woodchip wrote:You do realize it was the Chair of the RNC that offered to pay to keep the WW@ memorial open. I guess Obama didn't want to be upstaged so he re-opened it. Funny how we don't see the Dems offering to pay to open a closed facility. They missed a big photo op when Obama closed the white house to children. The Dems could of offered to foot the bill for that but I guess politics before the well-being of our most precious assets...for all they bring children into the room when they want to make a point.

So? The RNC is playing games, the DNC is playing games. It's all so insipid and pointless, all because of a minority bunch of Congressmen decided it was time to throw a party, play games, stir the pot, get drunk and divide the country. Hope their happy, because they're making a whole bunch of other people very unhappy.

Or perhaps TC, those ner-do-wells are doing just what they promised to do if elected.

I’m pretty sure they put up those barricades (which anybody could simply walk around) so they would have someplace to hang those signs that say…The Government has been shut down by those Evil Republicans.

vision wrote:...
I'll point it out again, Mt Vernon looks like a peculiar, isolated incident and is not indicative of the wider shutdown activity. Regarding the barricades, it may be simply part of policy, even if that policy is idiotic. ..

No, Mt Vernon isn't an isolated incident. As the first link I put up shows, besides the WWII monument there was another private enterprise that the administration shut down even though the staff was there ready to work...

National Park Officials closed down the educational Claude Moore Colonial Farm near the CIA in McLean, Va., even though the federal government doesn't fund or staff the park popular with children and schools. Just because the privately-operated park is on Park Service land, making the federal government simply its landlord, the agency decided to close it.

A Claude Moore Colonial Farm official said that the privately-funded staff is on the job Wednesday, but barred from letting anybody visit the historically accurate buildings or animals. Anna Eberly, the managing director, sent out an email decrying the decision and rude National Park Service staff handling the closure.

Pointing to Park Service claims that parks have to be closed because the agency can’t afford staff during the government closure, Eberly wrote: “What utter crap. We have operated the Farm successfully for 32 years after the NPS cut the Farm from its budget in 1980 and are fully staffed and prepared to open today. But there are barricades at the Pavilions and entrance to the Farm. And if you were to park on the grass and visit on your own, you run the risk of being arrested. Of course, that will cost the NPS staff salaries to police the Farm against intruders while leaving it open will cost them nothing.”

She added: “In all the years I have worked with the National Park Service, first as a volunteer for six years in Richmond where I grew up, then as an NPS employee for eight very long years and now enjoyably as managing director for the last 32 years — I have never worked with a more arrogant, arbitrary and vindictive group representing the NPS. I deeply apologize that we have to disappoint you today by being closed but know that we are working while the National Park Service is not — as usual.”

So the policy you think spurred these closings is all about avoiding lawsuits over accidents happening in a parking lot... a lot where there never is a parking attendant....but because one cant be there during a shutdown..... the lot must be closed... because during a shutdown an attendant to cover for the attendant that never was there can't be afforded....but the lot can be re-opened and un-attended after the shutdown is over...

But you are just trying to be objective so you accept that as more likely than political theater?!? I think that is going right past objective...through absurdsville and all the way round to theater of your own but each his own I guess.


So, assuming I'm wrong and you arent trying to create cover for political hacks gone wild, just for your own reflection, test your objectivity for a minute.\
How many parking spaces, both on the side of streets and lots large and small do you think the Federal government owns?
Out of all those, how many do you think have been barricaded?
How many do you think are barricaded that aren't primarily tourist/high profile?

You can't tell me tourists are the only ones who are litigious nor are those lots the most trafficked lots the government owns. So this lawsuit prevention policy closes only a few choice lots....why?

woodchip wrote:Or perhaps TC, those ner-do-wells are doing just what they promised to do if elected.

Yes, we should totally let the godawful choices of a bunch of idiot districts ruin the country for the rest of us.

Will Robinson wrote:So, assuming I'm wrong and you arent trying to create cover for political hacks gone wild, just for your own reflection, test your objectivity for a minute... So this lawsuit prevention policy closes only a few choice lots....why?

As I stated before, I don't know any of the facts. I have read two articles and neither were very informative. There is no reason for me to create "political cover," I have no love for a dysfunctional government. But, it's the only one we have so we must carry on. I couldn't possibly guess how many lots the government owns, but you are in a complete rage about, what, three of four lots with barricades out of perhaps hundreds? Maybe thousands? That's rather crazy don't you think? If this is such a big deal for you, then maybe your time would be better spent investigating the situation yourself instead of arguing with someone who has taken a neutral position on the matter? This isn't going to turn into Barricade-gate 2013. It's probably the result of a ill-conceived, poorly executed policy, which is the modus operandi for our government. Or you can believe it's a conspiracy. Your choice man. Seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So, assuming I'm wrong and you arent trying to create cover for political hacks gone wild, just for your own reflection, test your objectivity for a minute... So this lawsuit prevention policy closes only a few choice lots....why?

As I stated before, I don't know any of the facts. I have read two articles and neither were very informative. There is no reason for me to create "political cover," I have no love for a dysfunctional government. But, it's the only one we have so we must carry on. I couldn't possibly guess how many lots the government owns, but you are in a complete rage about, what, three of four lots with barricades out of perhaps hundreds? Maybe thousands? That's rather crazy don't you think? If this is such a big deal for you, then maybe your time would be better spent investigating the situation yourself instead of arguing with someone who has taken a neutral position on the matter? This isn't going to turn into Barricade-gate 2013. It's probably the result of a ill-conceived, poorly executed policy, which is the modus operandi for our government. Or you can believe it's a conspiracy. Your choice man. Seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

I think you are overestimating my emotional investment on this big time.
It takes a few moments to post my opinion. It takes a few minutes to read the reports on it as they come out.
At the same time I'm here I'm emailing customers and directing service techs to their next location etc. some people doodle while on the phone, I surf the net...

It is interesting you acknowledge the government has thousands of parking spaces yet you seem comfortable assuming the reason a few choice lots were barricaded was simply a preset policy to avoid legal issues for leaving a lot that is always unmanned unmanned...
There is a giant leap of faith there to come to that conclusion and then just stop considering the extremely selective nature of installing the barricades! It serves to support your idea of motive almost not at all considering the ratio of lots selected.
It supports my idea of motive perfectly.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Or perhaps TC, those ner-do-wells are doing just what they promised to do if elected.

Yes, we should totally let the godawful choices of a bunch of idiot districts ruin the country for the rest of us.

And a few in high places use the desire to win no matter the cost are some how better than those "idiot" districts?:

"Although the government shutdown continues, it appears President Barack Obama and the White House are not getting any closer to negotiating with Republicans. A quotation from an unnamed senior administration official in today's Wall Street Journal explains why.

Said a senior administration official: "We are winning...It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result."

ya that sound like a party that is willing to negotiate

Heh...

"We're sticking to our principles" vs. "They're unwilling to negotiate"

Over the past month or so, these talking points have switched sides (or maybe better put, the sides have switched talking points). It's interesting...

AGREED its all B/S. both side are standing their ground Neither side is budging. BOTH are at fault. EQUALLY

In principle I think the Dems have the high ground. The law passed, technically the Repubs have a right to block funding if they choose to. It would be nice to believe they block it only because they are serving the best interest of the people instead of just scoring some political leverage...but I'm not buying that excuse. They have never offered any kind of viable solution.

I am reminded of those numerous occasions when my favorite football team has just lost a close game by a missed feildgoal or interception in the closing moments of the game. The reporter asks the coach a leading question seeking to strike up controversy...something like, How do you feel about seeing your season come crashing down all because of a missed kick?

The coach responds with, It wasn't the kick that lost us the game. We put ourselves in that position by failing to score a number of times when we had the ball.

Well, the Dems put themselves in this position because if the country was truly behind Obamacare in force there wouldn't be a Repub willing to play this game.
The fact that Americans want and need affordable healthcare is not proof that they have any faith in Obamacare. It has been put into law with as much if not more underhanded tactics and lies as any Repubs are using right now to delay it.



Have some common courtesy for your fellow man! I know you can smell it! Flush the toilet called Washington DC next election...