I showed you...Ft Huachuca and every other military installation has their contractor personnel in place and operating. You are grasping at a silly straw.I showed you it. It is actually more likely that the contract with Quantico is the one that has a special provision to overcome the law, rather than the others having a contract that goes with the law.
Whether you want to understand it or not, they cannot allow people to congest roads outside a park that has to be closed because people are determined to see the sight despite the shutdown. They cannot allow people in parks that have to be closed, on government property that is maintained by federal funds, no matter whether people don't understand that or not. There was no military chaplains to operate the chapel so yes, it had to be closed. It sucks but it is politics and it is petty to blame this on Obama, especially placing all the blame on him.
Its not just Quantico that has contract personnel still and always on board and doing their job...its bases and posts around the globe. There was absolutely NO need to block the Chapel access, just as there has been no need to deploy a small army of personnel to lock down open air monuments and park access roads. The contract argument was just a grasp at an argument to justify the actions of the Administration. ANY justification, regardless of how petty and childish they are behaving.
I showed you...Ft Huachuca and every other military installation has their contractor personnel in place and operating. You are grasping at a silly straw.
That argument is just as weak as your contract argument. Those parks and access roads have been used and utilized unabated with zero problems. And of course...when it is a group you want to pander too...hey...SURE...go ahead and use the national mall...its not closed to YOU guys...
Just...ridiculous. The administration is behaving like a spoiled petulant child. It is absolutely fair to say both parties and houses of Congress bear the responsibility for their actions (and greater for their INACTION that led up to this). But 'credit' where credit is due. And its just COMICAL that you are defending the Administration for sending MORE PEOPLE THAN WHEN THEY WERE OPEN to shut them down. Make em bleed!
Your question is a false premise
1) Obama will have doubled the debt by the end of his Presidency (if he doesn't seek lifetime presidency anyways)
2) His job as Commander in Chief is to make absolutely sure that soldiers who die in the line of duty on the field of battle are honored. That their family members are taken care of. Comparing that to Obamacare and EBT cards is a disgrace
Which welfare recipients? The millions who are scamming the Disability Program? The Unemployed on 99 weeks of xbox and pot leave? The EBT cards? The 50 million + dependent upon Food Stamps? Those people are getting paid right now while the families of soldiers are having to rely on private donations to attend the funeral of their slain loved ones.
Obama has known about this issue for days and did nothing. There were appropriations bills that even tried to address this, but Obama's Pentagon interpreted the Law their way. As of right now, Obama and Reid CONTINUE to block all resolution that would address this issue.
Indeed. And you have no evidence to the contrary. And obviously even though every other military installation on the planet has contractors that were not only allowed to but REQUIRED to be at work, surely THAT contract wasnt. Because...how else would it fit your argument and defense of the administration?And they either have contracts that allow for this circumventing of the law or they are covered in some other way.
Indeed. And you have no evidence to the contrary. And obviously even though every other military installation on the planet has contractors that were not only allowed to but REQUIRED to be at work, surely THAT contract wasnt. Because...how else would it fit your argument and defense of the administration?
Yep.This is what is astonishing to me: In the face of such petty churlishness on the part of this Admin, some still defend it. Amazing.
And there are many that are and were required. You have no way of even PRETENDING to know if the reason they were barred from entering the chapel had ANYTHING to do with their contract. You MADE the silly argument...you probably have the burden of proof of DEFENDING the silly argument.There actually are many contractors not being allowed to work on bases right now. It was in that article too. It wasn't just one base. There are some bases where contractors are able to work and others where they aren't. It has to do with how their contract is written. Unless you want to show me the exact contracts and that they match and how Obama himself or someone else in his administration rather than the bases or DOD purposely chose to pick certain priests to just persecute then you have nothing but petulant blame and trying to pin this on Obama rather than the shutdown, which is Congress's fault.
And there are many that are and were required. You have no way of even PRETENDING to know if the reason they were barred from entering the chapel had ANYTHING to do with their contract. You MADE the silly argument...you probably have the burden of proof of DEFENDING the silly argument.
No it is asking about doing something illegal and wrong for your priorities in government spending vice doing something for Obama's priorities in government spending. Easy question that you fail to answer because you know that you would not approve of his priorities, only yours.
By volunteering for the military, people have promised that their religious "obligations" will take second to their jobs. If that means that they cannot get off base on Sunday for whatever reason, then they will have to just deal with that. It would be no difference than them being on duty and there simply not being a way for them to get off duty to make it to Mass on Sunday.
I knew a guy who was Buddhist in the Navy and he was struggling with the fact that his own religion would have him finding inner peace in the mountains or somewhere more peaceful than the bowels of a ship. Many people sacrifice religious "obligations" for military service.
Do you mean like the laws governing the freedom of religion? And which law do you suppose would forbid, for instance a wedding, where the Government is being charged nothing, and all participants are preforming voluntarily? And if any law is to be so construed, what do you suppose the purpose of such a tortured interpretation might be?Or it could be because of the law. I know, fact checking is hard...
Sorry. you mean like the laws governing the freedom of religion? And which law do you suppose would forbid, for instance a wedding, where the Government is being charged nothing, and all participants are preforming voluntarily? And if any law is to be so construed, what do you suppose the purpose of such a tortured interpretation might be?
Fact checking may be hard, but as you so elegantly illustrated for the class, thinking is more difficult still.
Oh good lord...
No one's freedom of religion is being violated. There is no requirement to provide catholic services to service members on base. No one is saying they cannot meet, cannot worship, cannot attend services off base. Please learn the constitution.
Yes. the Federal
Government, the
Executive Branch to be specific, is forbidding the chaplains from participating in a voluntary fashion, thus depriving the Servicemen of the free exercise of their religion. I'm sorry, but to state otherwise is simply absurd, and shows a marked ignorance of the practices of the Catholic Church to boot.
You would have a point if the reason they where forbidden was based on religion. It is not, it is based on contract type. Also note these are not chaplains, but civilians.
Your premise is a joke. The Government is running at 85% capacity. The EBT cards are still swiping. Your welfare check is still on it's way.
Obama's priorities in spending couldn't be more crystal clear. They are so clear he's bankrupting the nation. Suddenly when he can't borrow more money he doesn't have the money to pay KIA families to come to the funerals, but he has the money to buy beach bums in La Jolla lobster. This is what happens when people become reliant upon Government. What would happen if Obama tried to really use this shutdown to stop feeding all the millions of welfare obots out there. What's going to happen if he shuts off their Obama phones. He's already trying to take our guns. What's going to happen when that EBT card gets rejected. What if Obama turned off the welfare benefits just like he's turned off the benefits for these military families.
You're saying it yourself and even making my case for me. Those "poor people" can't survive without Government. Without "altruistic" Obama providing for them. Obama only wants to control your HC and create the largest database in human history because he cares about you right?
Look at how he uses it as political theatre. He causes the pain and then uses people the MSM to run the sob narrative to try and scare everyone that only the government can make things right. People are waking up to this Alinsky spectacle however which is why Obama is going down in the polls. Both parties are because they have become corrupt and controlled by big banks and corporations. You're telling me if you were President of the United States (The Commander in Chief) you'd let these benefits not be paid to these military families? Are you kidding me right now? Clearly Obama has failed in his role as Commander in Chief here and Hagel has failed miserably as well. Hagel is Obama's pick. Obama is responsible. I don't know what your morality is, but a President can easily sign an executive order to fund this. He'd be performing his role as Commander in Chief. You're confusing Obama's role as Commander in Chief with Obama's fantasy prog/obot narrative that Obama is everyone's Daddy.
That is all fine and well, the DoD policy is to allow for religious accommodation. It blows my mind the lengths people will go, the back flips, cartwheels, and nose dives people will take, the complete asininity they will conjure to protect Obama's sorry ass...to justify this unseemly behavior, to justify his attacks on members of our Armed Forces and the citizens of these United States...I guess people truly do love their Big Brother...
The bottom line is that this didn't need to happen. Obama wanted it to happen. So piss on Obama.
Well, if that's what he was struggling with, than he was missing the entire point...and no "his own religion" doesn't have him finding inner peace in the mountains, or whatever cockamamie nonsense your anecdote is trying to deliver
Should probably not try using a Buddhist example to justify a line of reasoning with someone who has a Buddhist monk as an Avatar, he just might know a thing or two and he might call BS on things that don't jive...
So you're fine with a tyrant as long as he's your tyrant, got it! :thumbs: No further conversation with you is necessary. To you I say good day!
There are many different sects of Buddhism in the world, so claiming that you know his story couldn't be real just because you happen to be in one of those other ones is bull. Plus, why must his personal beliefs about what might bring him enlightenment and where he should be be known to you just because you are Buddhist? Aren't there many paths to enlightenment?
And religious accommodations are made when available or able to be made. The simple truth is that they can't always be made. And this is not Obama doing this, but the shutdown, which is Congress's fault, not Obama's.
It is a president and it is part of their job. If you do not like the president you only have to wait three years and he will be gone. This is why he is not a tyrant. Not to mention a real tyrant would not have to deal with a shutdown if you actually thought about what you were saying. He would simply make it happen. So there is absolutely no way obama is a tyrant. he is just a president who is doing something you do not want because your elected officials are spoiled and went on a hissy fit and won't give the country a budget.
More, lovey lovey smootch smootch for the Tyrant, I said good day!
It shows you have no idea what an actual tyrant is when you improperly use it for Obama. Normally when you have a conversation with people in english you use the agreed upon meaning of words so that you can converse. When you call Obama a tyrant I am not sure what you are talking about because he certainly does not fit any definition of tyrant that is accepted by society. It is like saying Obama is a astronaut. It just simply is not so and we cannot understand what you actually mean.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?