Shut 'em Down!

bbl!

>:D

Wasn't referring to you though.

I was referring to basically what Nik said, kindof. He put it better than what I did

Nik hit the nail on the head on that one.

I got the tequila ready. Need somebody to drink 90% of these 500 bottles I have ready. Got the towels too.

They're all busy protesting tea party obstruction

To answer your question. I am ok with republicans bitching out the park service because keeping old WW2 vets and tourists out of open air otherwise un-patrolled spaces is nothing but politics. It didn't happen in previous shutdowns, the fact that it's happening in this one is a deliberate and vindictive decision by the administration.

"“Despite the federal government shutdown and an unrepaired sign that reads ‘Arizona Memorial closed,’ tourists are still getting expert commentary about the World War II memorial at Pearl Harbor,” wrote the Associated Press on January 1, 1996.

The parks however ARE open for the right kind of people. That pro immigration rally that happened the other day on the national mall actually happened. Why? I would argue because it gave good PR to the president, and further pushed his agenda. Or at least he thought it did.

That decision is pretty much unprecedented, Obama is keeping vets out and letting illegal immigrants in. It's disgusting, and he owns it.

----

The republicans hold the house, they largely campaigned on stopping the ACA, and they were elected on those promises. This is what the voters who put them there wanted them to do. Despite your continued insistence that they "caused the shutdown", they have offered several different paths to fund the government, all of which have been rejected by the democrats and the white house.

This is like when your toddler (obama) only wants to eat spaghetti-os with meatballs for dinner (full aca funding) and threatens to throw a tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants (NPS response). You offer mac & cheese, regular spaghetti-os, and spaghetti-os with hot dogs as an alternative (other CRs republicans have passed) but the toddler refuses to eat them, makes a mess of the kitchen in his rage and goes to bed hungry because he didn't get what he wanted.

You look at that example and place blame 100% on the parent who didn't cave into the child's needs.

I wish! The only protest on the news is the threat of the trucker beltway traffic jam.... and spain is having it's weekly naked protests about whatever...

LAME

But I didn't even get a lousy T-shirt....

well thanks, now I'm hungry for spaghetti-os....

The meatball variety is the best!

EDIT: Crap! that's the hotdog one right? Aw who cares, they don't look all that different right?

but the hotdog pieces have faces on them! /relents and eats the hot dog spagetti-o's

Anonymous staff writer obviously injected some personal opinion into that article... but yes, the government wastes money that way all the time. Procurement is a horribly broken system. It also takes place in a different part of the government and has nothing to do with the executive.

Generally you find things that aren't a problem to blame on Obama, at least this time you found a real problem, too bad it's got nothing to do with him.

Keep trying though, if nothing else you'll learn something in the process.

Uh...

A more accurate analogy would be a toddler (tea party) decides they won't take a bath unless you build them a treehouse right now. ACA is outside this federal budget and was passed just like any other law. They were elected to repeal it, they tried, and failed. Now they're on a rampage and don't care who gets hurt.

you can cry about the hypocrisy of the national park shutdown all you want, but you've got the function of the government *** backwards as usual.

You gotta admit, Europe might be on to something there.

How can you say it has nothing to do with him? It's called "Obamacare" (he's called it that). The fact that the site has costs about 6x what it was initially estimated at and still doesn't work doesn't speak well to the law or the person that's leading the charge for it's implementation?

Actually, the plan was being written before Obama was even a presidential nominee, and was coined Obamacare by a Pharma lobbyist.

The procurement also has nothing to do with the executive. It's a major systemic issue in the government, but Obama didn't write the check. Do some research on government procurement before you spout out tinfoil.

lol that's a terrible anology... the sphagettios and meatballs have already been consumed... now you're asking him to throw it up because you really didn't want him to eat the sphagettios and meatballs it was supposed to be hotdogs in there so he has to throw it up now and start over... The meatballs were for the people we liked!

Edit: and you talk about republicans campaigning on it? well the ACA is what Obama campaigned on lol... They have offered paths that will not pass... Why don't you get this? Lets just say this... how awful is the repulican party to the people that even though you claim that everyone hates that ACA they still put obama back in office over your candidate lol... This shutdown is the republicans fault... they knew they had no chance to shutdown the ACA... they knew it... other conservatives knew it too... yet they went along with this plan anyways lol... they know they can't get rid of it so they're going to try and get some publicity out of this and try to use that in upcoming elections saying things that you're saying lol... ridiculous as it is people like yourself eat it up lol... stamp your feet as much as you like the ACA isn't going away...

why do you always gotta hate on the tinfoil? D:

Its a fashion statement damnit!

The site is built, run, and managed, under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services. Which is headed by the (big surprise) Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius, a member of the presidential cabinet. He hand picked that appointee to run that position. He is responsible for her and everything she does. To assert otherwise is akin to saying the head of BP isn't responsible for the oil spill that happened in the gulf.

Except procurement is outside his control. It's handled by a separate part of the government. It's more like saying the CEO of BP isn't responsible for things that happen within a different company, even if BP is funding it. It's the system that's broken, it has nothing to do with the president.

You don't understand how the government works, stop pleading for someone to agree with you on the basis that OBAMA DID IT@!!

It's religious headwear, that's why so many tea party congressmen are allowed to wear it at work.

I would agree that Obama is, in part, responsible for the costs associated with the ACA's implementation...

I did think it was funny that the author of the article even says "Given the utter lack of fiscal sanity within Washington, D.C., such numbers can lose context." meaning that what? this is the norm and you wouldn't see much difference compared to other costs but you want to try and make a point to say that this is ridiculous anyways? lol...

Right, the toddler wont eat anything but spaghettios with meatballs, so unless you give him what exactly he wants (remember he's not willing to negotiate) its your fault he won't eat.

That's the most flawed reasoning ever.

Wrong wrong wrong. If BP hired a company to build a device to extract oil from the gulf and that device that failed, the CEO of BP is STILL RESPONSIBLE for the oil spill.

We've touched on that before... I predicted that about a month after launch the wronkles would be hammered out and people would start to forget about it like usual lol... It's the same thing at work... they roll out a new system there are glitches people get pissed off and then it works the kinks out and everyone just slides into it...

Still responsible even though they had no say in who was hired, how much they were paid, and no control over the process? You're playing strawman.

Procurement is a process outside of the executive's control. You're playing good tea party voter and lapping up everything they excrete on your head, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to criticize Obama, there are a million legitimate reasons, why do you and your hilt constantly pull out the incredulous ones? It completely destroys your position and make him look like the good guy.

LERN TO PR..

It's flawed reasoning in this case because you ALREADY GAVE HIM the sphagettios and meatballs... he ALREADY HAS IT... now you want to take it away from him... its not like he's pushing for it now and saying give me my motherfucking sphagettios with the *** meatballs or I won't move forward... He's saying I already ate the damn sphagettios you gave me I'm not going to throw it up...

The pubs are stamping their feet and going on saying that they will not move forward unless you throw up those sphagettios and meatballs because even though it was already given to you... we don't want you to have it anymore... so throw it up or we won't move forward...

Edit: It's not my problem they made unatainable campaign promises... but really what politician doesn't?

Radicals never admit to double standards.